get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' clearly implies a non-destructive read operation, and the description lists the kind of information returned. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, response format details, or any edge behavior, though these are less critical for a simple read-only account endpoint.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional parameter usage is stated directly and economically. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is nearly complete: it names the account-scope resource, lists representative returned fields, and explains how to request additional data. There is no output schema, so exact return structure is not specified, but the high-level response categories are sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic color by explaining that 'with' can enrich the response with users_groups, task_types, and amojo_id, but this largely mirrors the schema's enum list. It does not significantly deepen meaning beyond the structured definition.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('current amoCRM account'), and the kind of data returned ('name, plan, users, task types, etc.'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling lead/contact/task tools because it targets account-level metadata.

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 implies use when account-level information is needed, and the 'with' instruction gives operational guidance for extending the response. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over an alternative, mention prerequisites, or describe exclusions.

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