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. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., account settings, billing details, performance metrics) or behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the optional token, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with an external API like Meta Ads.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a concise 'Args' section that explains parameters without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose content, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 (a tool for fetching account info from Meta Ads API), the description is moderately complete. It benefits from an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), so it doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter semantics, it lacks details on authentication behavior, error cases, or API-specific constraints, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in real-world scenarios.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: it specifies that 'account_id' is a 'Meta Ads account ID' with a format example ('act_XXXXXXXXX'), and 'access_token' is a 'Meta API access token' with usage guidance ('optional - will use cached token if not provided'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema), this compensates well by providing essential context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all potential nuances like token scopes or validation rules.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific ad account.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('ad account'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ad_accounts' (which likely lists accounts) or 'get_ad_details' (which focuses on ads rather than accounts), so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ad_accounts' (for listing accounts) or 'get_account_pages' (for pages associated with accounts), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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