get-account

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly states the HTTP method 'GET', which implies a read-only operation and is a useful behavioral cue, especially given no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or response handling, so transparency is limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that succinctly states exactly what to do. There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the account data looks like or how to interpret the response. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail would be needed for full completeness, but the simplicity keeps it at an adequate level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Make a GET request') and the resource ('/ccm/api/1.0/account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target users, groups, sites, etc. However, it does not explain what 'account' refers to or what data is returned, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the HTTP request without context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.