get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only,' a key behavioral trait. It also discloses the nuanced 'effective role (trial-elevated while a trial is active)' behavior, which goes beyond a simple field list. It lacks details on auth specifics or rate limits, but the core safety profile is disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value (field list, usage context, read-only status, role nuance). No wasted words.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is fully self-contained: it explains what is returned, the key nuance of trial elevation, and the use case. The sibling context shows clear differentiation, and no additional information is needed for an agent to decide when to use it.

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 there is nothing to document for invocation. The description instead enriches the return semantics by detailing the meaning of 'role' and 'effective role', which adds value beyond the empty input schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Return the API-key holder's account info') and enumerates the exact fields returned, making the purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_picks or suppress_market, which deal with other domains.

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 clear context on when to use it ('Useful for an AI assistant to explain what plan the user is on and which leagues they have access to'), effectively indicating the tool's role among siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the domain separation from siblings is implicit.

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