get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what fields come back (due dates, queue position), but says nothing about the requirement for an authenticated/connected account – a real gap given a connect_account sibling exists.

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?

A single, dense sentence with zero filler, and the most important content (cards, loans, holds) is front-loaded. It reads as a noun fragment rather than a complete statement of action, which slightly weakens the framing but not the economy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields in full, and it correctly stays brief. The one thing an agent needs that is absent is the prerequisite that an account must already be connected/authenticated before this call succeeds.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing or misleading on 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?

It names the specific resource set returned – library cards, current loans with due dates, and holds with queue position – which lets an agent distinguish it from get_history and get_availability. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'), so the framing is a content listing rather than a stated action, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use statement and no named alternative, despite siblings like get_history, connect_account and get_availability that overlap in scope. The agent must infer that this is the go-to call for a full account snapshot versus loan history or availability checks.

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