get_account_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful non-obvious context beyond that: it reports account type/role, available calls, and attached server IDs, and frames the tool as a connection check. No contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences, with the core resource and returned content front-loaded and no redundant filler. The connection-check note earns its place as practical guidance.

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 zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool with annotations already covering safety, this description is complete: it states the endpoint, what data can be expected, and a common use case. No output schema exists, but the listed fields sufficiently set expectations.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information to add, and the description correctly focuses on the returned account/token information.

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 names a specific operation (get current API token and account info) and a resource (auth/info), and it lists concrete contents: available calls, account type/role, attached server IDs. This is distinguishable from sibling key-management tools like get_api_key/list_api_keys because it is explicitly about the current token's account context.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'useful for checking the connection'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it scores below a fully explicit routing description.

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