get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the tool is 'readonly-owner' and maps to a GraphQL query, implying a safe read operation. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, side effects, or auth requirements beyond the tier tag.

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 extremely concise: two sentences and a tier tag. Every word is meaningful, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 get operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, GraphQL mapping, and permission tier. No additional context is needed for effective use.

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 only parameter, 'fields', is described in both the schema and the tool description. The schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get the connected Jobber account's basic info', specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('account'), and scope ('basic info'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_client or list_jobs by focusing on the account entity.

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 provides clear context (read-only owner tier, GraphQL mapping), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, since siblings target different entities, the usage is implicitly clear.

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