Get account capabilities

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

Annotations only declare read-only/non-destructive/openWorld=false, but the description adds the real behavioral value: this is a pre-flight gate check that prevents 403s and disambiguates which identity a subsequent request will act on. It also discloses the entitlement semantics of the gated write tools (available to signed-in free accounts subject to usage limits), plus free/max portfolio limits — context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the 'BEFORE' urgency, then the return contents, then the call condition. The middle entitlement enumeration is dense but each item carries information. Slightly long for a zero-param tool, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, itemizing identity, plan status and reason, scopes, usage-vs-limits, and per-tool entitlements. Combined with the explicit call condition and the read-only confirmation, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly in one shot.

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 there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional and account-scoped rather than parameter-driven.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover what the connected Bullrun account can do') and then enumerates exactly what it reports: auth identity, Pro/trial status, OAuth scopes, portfolio usage limits, and a per-tool entitlement map. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool, which are all market/portfolio data reads.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('BEFORE attempting an action'), an explicit motivation ('plan instead of learning by hitting a 403'), and a concrete trigger ('Call this first when a draft/write tool might be gated, or to confirm which account a request will act on'). The gated tools are named directly, so an agent knows precisely when this pre-flight call is warranted.

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