get_account_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a GET request and lists all return fields, but it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only) or error conditions. The endpoint and return structure provide some transparency.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, implementation detail, bulleted return fields, and a use case. It is concise without being sparse, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple zero-parameter getter, the description covers the purpose, return object, and use case. It lacks explicit error handling details, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot conflict with it. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4; the description focuses on the operation and return object, which is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Retrieve linked account information from the Busy Bar device,' providing a specific verb and resource. It further details the exact API endpoint and method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_account_status and get_account_backend.

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?

A dedicated 'Use case' section states 'Verify an account is properly linked and inspect the associated email before performing account-specific operations,' giving clear context for when to call this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the use case is sufficiently clear.

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