Get account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the account fields and diagnostic uses, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as error behavior, rate limits, or response structure. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not richer.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and content are front-loaded, diagnostic use cases are compactly listed, and the sibling alternative is stated in a single final clause. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations and a sibling for balance, the description is complete. It lists the returned account fields, states when to use the tool, gives diagnostic scenarios, and points to the alternative. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently communicates the return contents.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full JetAPI account information'), and enumerates the key fields returned. It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_balance by naming the sibling it is not, making selection unambiguous.

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 explicitly gives usage scenarios: verify the token works, check subscription active, and diagnose undelivered messages due to unauthorized channels. It also provides an explicit alternative ('For just the balance use get_balance'), fully routing the agent to the correct tool.

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