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. The description adds useful scope disclosure (what is and is not returned), but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the payload is cached or live, or how plan-limit values are represented.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource name, packing the return scope and the sibling exclusion with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the five content areas. It stops short of describing the shape or nesting of those areas, but for a parameterless read of a bounded object this is close to sufficient.

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 avoids inventing parameter semantics and instead spends its words on scope, which is the only meaningful input question here (implicitly, no filtering arguments exist).

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?

Names the resource (the Lendlord account) and enumerates exactly what it covers: user, team role, currency/country settings, applicants, and plan usage limits. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly excluding property data and pointing to list_properties, so an agent can place it without opening the schema.

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 gives one routing rule — property data lives elsewhere, use list_properties — but offers no positive guidance on when account data is the right call versus tools like compliance_overview or get_profit_and_loss, which are also account-scoped aggregates.

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