coronium_get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' and the listing of returned fields imply a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, the fact that it returns data for the currently authenticated account, or the possibility of null/empty fields. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that succinctly names the operation and lists key result components. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete overview. It covers the main payload items (profile and balance summary), though it could be slightly more specific about the structure of the balance summary or what 'business data' entails. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already provides 100% coverage. Per the baseline rule for parameterless tools, the description need not add parameter information. It appropriately does not attempt to invent parameter details.

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 states the tool gets the account profile and lists specific contents (email, role, contact, business data) along with an overall balance summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like coronium_get_balance, which focus only on balance, and coronium_get_payments, which focus on payments.

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?

The description implies usage by enumerating what it returns, allowing an agent to infer when to call it (when account profile or overall balance is needed). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving potential ambiguity with coronium_get_balance for balance-only needs.

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