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 burden. It discloses that secret fields (api_key, callback_salt) are hidden, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects (though it is likely read-only). The disclosure adds some value but is incomplete for a read operation without annotations.

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 brief, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the security detail as a secondary note. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple parameterless get operation, covering what is returned and what is hidden. However, it does not address error handling or how this tool fits into the broader toolset. Given the many sibling tools, a brief mention of when to use this over others would improve completeness, but the lack of output schema is mitigated by the explicit 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given there are none. The schema already fully describes the input expectations.

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'), the resource ('account information'), and specifies the content (balance, tariff, limits). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_transaction_history or get_users by focusing on account-level settings, making its purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transaction_history or get_call_history. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. Since there are many sibling tools, explicit exclusions or conditions would be valuable.

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