Run account tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only 'lookup' behavior, which is helpful, but it does not disclose what the response contains, whether it performs external network calls, error behavior, or any side effects. For a tool named 'run_account_tool', the behavioral profile is underexplained.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and the usage context are front-loaded, and the example input structures are compact and directly useful.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key invocation scenario and gives input examples. However, it does not describe the return data, which matters because the agent needs a flair or board id from the response. It is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates partly by showing valid tool values and their expected input shapes: reddit-flairs takes { subreddit } and pinterest-boards takes {}. The accountId parameter is only implied by 'per-account' and not formally explained, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 action ('Run a per-account lookup') and identifies two concrete variants, reddit-flairs with an input and pinterest-boards with empty input. It is more specific than the tool's name, though it does not fully clarify whether these are examples or the exhaustive set, since the schema says the tool value comes from list_account_tools.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use before creating posts that need a flair or board id.' This gives a clear precondition and purpose. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to post creation is direct and useful.

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