get_account_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb '返回' indicates a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not state any side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the information is real-time or cached. For a simple no-parameter getter this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single, clear phrase with no filler. Every element contributes meaning, and the core action and target resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 very low complexity, zero parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance on when this choice is appropriate compared to get_account_status or configure_account, and it does not clarify whether this is a lightweight identity lookup or a more involved call. This is acceptable but leaves room for an agent to mis-select it.

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 zero parameters, and the schema is essentially an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline guidance, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail because there are no parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('返回' / returns) and a clear resource ('当前账号身份信息' / current account identity information), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_account_status, but the resource scope is clear enough to separate it from most email operations.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_account_status, configure_account, or test_email_connection. No context is provided about prerequisites, such as whether an account must already be configured or authenticated. The zero-parameter shape makes misuse less likely, but the tool description still leaves selection entirely to inference.

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