Get Account Info

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

The readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations already establish that this is a safe, externally backed read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the concrete field inventory (subscription, linked devices) beyond the annotations, but says nothing about needing an authenticated Cookidoo session first or about any rate behavior for an open-world call.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource and then the payload contents. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining requirement is scope clarity, which the field list supplies. The one missing piece relative to openWorldHint is that this depends on an established Cookidoo connection.

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 schema defines zero parameters with additionalProperties:false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs the schema does not accept.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus a specific resource ('the Cookidoo account') and an enumeration of the returned facts (user name, site, subscription, linked devices), which is enough to tell it apart from data-oriented siblings like get_meal_plan_week or get_shopping_list. It stops short of naming a sibling it should be preferred over (e.g. list_devices, which also surfaces devices), so no explicit differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement; usage is only implied by the tool being a zero-parameter account summary. Nothing tells the agent whether to call this or list_devices for the device portion, which is the one realistic overlap in the sibling set.

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