Account read-only

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes safety, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'no Set*/PIN'. It adds contract details like AliasID/AliasType defaults and profile_id requirements, but it does not describe auth context, output behavior, or rate limits; acceptable but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and front-loads the core read-only purpose, then uses scannable source-to-parameter rules. The 'SPA header contracts' phrase is terse, but there is no filler and each line 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?

The description is usable for the core sources and an output schema covers return shape, but with 17 possible sources and 7 parameters, several source behaviors are not clarified and compact has no stated semantics. An agent would still need to guess for the less common sources.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for profiles_type (0|1|2), alias_type (1=user, 14=group), and the profile_id/computer_guid conditional requirements. However, compact and many enum sources such as license, categories, reports, or processing_tasks remain unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 explicitly labels the tool as providing read-only account/profile/license Gets and enumerates concrete source variants such as profiles, timetable, and computer_profiles. This goes beyond the title and avoids tautology, though it remains a broad aggregate getter rather than a single crisp verb+resource statement.

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 useful source-dependent parameter rules, e.g., profiles takes optional user_id/alias_type, timetable/rules/profile_settings/computer_settings require profile_id, and computer_profiles accepts computer_guid. However, it never mentions alternatives among the sibling tools, so the agent must infer when to choose this tool over get_user_info or list_users_groups.

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