infomaniak_get_account_full

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description needs less. It adds valuable context with the 'Manager-private' access restriction and clarifies the support tier value (premium=2). Enumerating the returned fields also enhances transparency beyond what annotations offer.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose with 'Full organization detail.' Every listed field is relevant, and there is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with one parameter, existing output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's function and data scope. Minor gaps like explicit usage alternatives and return-format details are acceptable because the output schema handles format and the sibling list implies scope.

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 input schema already provides a complete description for account_id, including how to discover it (via infomaniak_list_organizations), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but that is unnecessary given the schema's thoroughness.

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 it retrieves 'Full organization detail' and enumerates specific data fields (legal entity, billing addresses, VAT, locale, timezone, etc.). It unambiguously identifies the resource as the account/organization and distinguishes itself from sibling tools targeting other resources (domains, drives, VPS).

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 implies this is the comprehensive org-detail tool via 'Full organization detail,' but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like infomaniak_list_organizations or infomaniak_get_account_resources. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making usage guidance only implicit.

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