get_account_info

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

The description discloses the return value format (dict with masked account number, expiry, device name), which is helpful. However, it does not mention any preconditions (e.g., being logged in) or side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps. With no annotations, more detail would be better.

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: two sentences that state the purpose and return value. No wasted words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema in structured form), the description covers the essential: what it returns. It could mention whether it requires an active session, but overall it's adequate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no redundancy.

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 Mullvad account information', which is a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_info and get_status, which cover different data.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not is given, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, straightforward read operation) makes its usage obvious. No sibling tool overlaps in purpose, so guidance is not critical.

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