infomaniak_audit_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by outlining what will be checked (expiring products, maintenance, locked products, ongoing operations), which is useful beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the types of issues found. 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?

The tool has an output schema and robust annotations, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core purpose and categories, though it could mention the scope (entire organization) more explicitly. Overall it is sufficient for agent understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (account_id, days_ahead, max_domain_checks) has a detailed description including defaults, constraints, and rate-limit context. The tool description itself doesn't add parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') with a clear resource ('Infomaniak organization') and enumerates concrete categories of issues (expiring, maintenance, locked, ongoing operations). This distinguishes it from other audit tools like infomaniak_audit_dns_zones or infomaniak_audit_account_access.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: for a broad health/audit scan of an organization. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear for a general audit tool.

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