account_info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some useful context by listing the metadata fields returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the account is not found. It aligns with the annotations and adds modest value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then cleanly lists the returned metadata fields. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the fields returned, and relies on annotations for safety. It does not explicitly explain that the 'account' parameter identifies which account's metadata to retrieve, but the schema already covers that. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the field list.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with 'account' described as 'Account name', so the description does not need to explain the parameter. The description does not add any further meaning about how the account name is used or validated, so it stays at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Klaviyo account metadata', and enumerates the specific fields returned (org name, timezone, currency, contact email, industry). It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like list_accounts or multi_account_summary, so it does not fully distinguish itself on its own.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_accounts or multi_account_summary. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so an agent receives no decision-making support beyond the tool's obvious purpose.

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