get_account_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It does disclose the concrete returned fields (available calls, account type/role, linked server IDs), which helps the agent judge whether the call is worth making. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the token itself is echoed back, so not a full 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the use case. No filler or restating of the name.

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 no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so with a concrete field list. Minor gaps (auth semantics, whether token value is included) keep it from being fully complete, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Little to add or subtract here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get account info') and enumerates the payload ('available calls, account type and role, linked server IDs'), which distinguishes it from credential-management siblings like list_api_keys or get_billing_client. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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 closing sentence 'Useful to verify the connection' implies a usage context but names no alternatives and no when-not conditions. Nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over get_billing_client or list_api_keys for account-level questions, so guidance is only implied.

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