get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'get' (implying a read operation), but adds no context about authentication requirements, potential errors, rate limits, or what 'limits' and 'sites' represent. The description only lists return facets, which is minimal for full transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides a reasonably complete picture by enumerating the return content (plan, usage, limits, sites). It lacks details on response format or edge cases, but for a basic get-account tool it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details but also has no need to. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description correctly does not invent unnecessary parameter information, and the listed return fields help the agent understand the tool's data.

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's purpose: 'Get your account details: plan, usage, limits, sites' uses a specific verb ('get') and names the resource (account details), enumerating the key information it returns. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profile and list_sites by focusing on account-level attributes.

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 usage context: use this tool when you need account-level details (plan, usage, limits, sites). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when to use alternative tools (e.g., get_profile for profile info), making it a 4 rather than a 5.

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