account_info

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

The description discloses that the return value is a formatted string with account details, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not mention authentication requirements, data scope, or the absence of side effects. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the return format.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, and the second specifies the return format. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 getter with an output schema present, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource and the return format. It could add more context about when to use this tool (e.g., for displaying account status to the user), but it is complete enough for a simple informational tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty object, and the description adds no param info, which is acceptable. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 'Get and format the current account information', identifying the action (get/format) and resource (account information). It is distinct from siblings such as place_order and close_position, which are trading operations, making the tool's purpose 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 implies usage for retrieving account details, and the sibling tools are all trading actions, so there is no overlap. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, though the context makes it clear.

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