get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves account info but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get DigiSign account info') and adds specific details ('credits, plan, usage') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. For a read operation in a server with many envelope-related tools, more guidance would improve completeness, but it meets the baseline for a basic tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying what account info is retrieved ('credits, plan, usage'), which provides semantic context beyond the empty schema. This compensates adequately, though it doesn't detail output structure.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DigiSign account info'), and specifies what information is retrieved ('credits, plan, usage'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_envelope', which might also retrieve account-related data in some contexts, though the focus on account-level info is implied.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), timing (e.g., before creating envelopes), or exclusions (e.g., not for envelope-specific data). With sibling tools like 'get_envelope' that retrieve specific resources, the lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.

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