account_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read operations', which clearly indicates no side effects or modifications. This sufficiently communicates the read-only nature, though it doesn't mention potential errors or limits, which are not critical for a simple read tool.

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 concise, using just two sentences to convey purpose and usage. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 complete for the tool's scope: it identifies the resource, action, endpoint selection method, and provides a pointer to list all endpoints. It does not elaborate on output format, but no output schema is expected, so this is acceptable.

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 description explains the `name` parameter (endpoint name) but does not add any meaning to `body`, `query`, or `path_params`. Since the schema already provides generic descriptions for these, the description adds marginal value beyond what is already in the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Read operations') and the specific resource ('Fivetran account'), and it identifies the exact endpoint available (get_account_info). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that target other resources.

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 explicit guidance on how to use the tool (pass the endpoint name in `name`) and directs users to list_endpoints(category='account') for the full list of endpoints. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other read tools, the resource-specific context makes alternatives clear enough.

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