Get your account information

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: single request with no automatic pagination, and that provider errors surface as failures even under HTTP 200 — details the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then operational caveats. No filler, though the phrasing is terse to the point of being slightly telegraphic.

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 100% schema coverage the input side is well covered, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a read tool with zero required params and a nested payload option, the description never hints at what the response contains beyond 'account information', leaving a modest gap.

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 schema already documents all four params in detail (fields paths, account credential selection, payload/payload_file exclusivity). The description's 'Use upstream fields to bound data' only lightly echoes the fields param, so baseline 3 is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get your account information') and the qualifier 'Current Buffer GraphQL account' scopes it to a single account, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_accounts. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 word 'Current' implies when this applies versus list_accounts, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. The 'Use upstream fields to bound data' note is usage-adjacent but framed as an instruction for the fields param, not a selection rule.

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