brevo_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only that the payload includes profile and plan information; it says nothing about rate limits, error behavior on invalid keys, or response shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, exactly matching the tool's modest scope. It is arguably too terse for a tool with no output schema, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description should say more about what 'profile and plan' returns (e.g. account email, company, plan tier) so the agent knows what to expect from the result.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single api_key parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the description correctly does not duplicate it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden and the description adds nothing further about key scope or permissions.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (the Brevo account profile and plan), which clearly separates it from siblings like brevo_list_contacts and brevo_list_campaigns that operate on collections. It does not explicitly name a sibling or an alternative, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other Brevo tools, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid API key, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the account-scoped noun phrase.

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