get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail of which account fields are returned, which is real behavioral context in the absence of an output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions required, freshness of dispatch count, or response format.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the returned fields without waste. It is a fragment with no verb, which slightly weakens readability, but nothing is extraneous.

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?

For a zero-argument read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is essentially complete. Naming the returned fields compensates for the missing output schema, though a bit more on auth or freshness would make it airtight.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none is needed.

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 names a specific resource (the DashPilot account) and enumerates what it returns: business, dispatch count, member since. That is enough to distinguish it from all sibling tools, which deal with deliveries, dispatch, and diagnostics. It lacks an explicit verb (

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it takes no parameters and returns account data. Similar sibling tools like get_dispatch_settings show that a routing hint would have helped.

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