Kooperativa: account info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only preflight role ('Get ... Call this first') and the exact information returned. It doesn't cover things like authentication failure behavior or whether the request itself consumes usage, but for a simple 0-param account-info call this is adequate.

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 purposeful sentences: the first names the resource and return payload, the second states when to call it. No filler or repetition of the tool 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?

For a 0-parameter, no-output-schema info endpoint, the description is complete: it names the resource, the return categories, and the recommended invocation order. Siblings are sufficiently distinguishable from it.

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 no parameters, so the schema is complete. The description adds context about what the returned account info contains, which is sufficient at the baseline for a 0-param tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the authenticated Kooperativa account's') and enumerates the exact returned data: email, license status, and per-endpoint API usage. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on people, companies, or monitors.

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 gives explicit context: call this first if unsure whether the license is active before running a large batch job. It does not list exclusions or directly name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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