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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get account information' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's rate-limited, what format the information is returned in, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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?

While the description is concise with just three words, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. 'Get account information' is too vague to be genuinely helpful—it doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful differentiation or context. True conciseness balances brevity with usefulness, which this description lacks.

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 complexity of account information tools in a financial context (with multiple sibling tools for specific data), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to compensate, and the description fails to clarify what this tool returns versus others like 'get_account_balance'. For a tool in a server with 10 sibling tools, this minimal description doesn't provide enough context for effective use.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though with an empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's lack of parameter information doesn't detract from its adequacy in this dimension.

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 'Get account information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_account_info'. While it indicates the verb 'get' and resource 'account information', it doesn't specify what kind of account information is retrieved or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_account_balance' or 'get_positions'. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation from related 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_account_balance', 'get_positions', and 'get_snapshots' that likely retrieve specific subsets of account data, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over those more specific tools. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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