infomaniak_audit_account_access

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by revealing that the tool highlights privileged/broad access and reports per-user fetch errors, which implies multiple API calls and per-user error handling. It does not contradict 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key highlights. Every word earns its place, with no redundant details.

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 high annotation coverage (read-only, idempotent), a detailed output schema, and a schema that fully documents parameters, the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only audit tool. It communicates the audit scope and key output highlights without unnecessary expansion.

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%, with both parameters (account_id and max_users) having clear descriptions. The max_users schema even notes 'Each user costs one API call.' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline 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 tool performs a 'Read-only admin audit of account users and their app accesses' and highlights specific output focuses (privileged access, broad access, per-user fetch errors). This distinguishes it from other audit siblings by specifying the resource (account users and app accesses) and the audit nature.

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 it is for admin auditing of account user access, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it provide exclusionary guidance. It offers clear context without naming sibling tools like infomaniak_list_account_users or infomaniak_get_user_app_accesses.

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