Get Current Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fixed. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it specifies the required api token permissions, explains the delegated-permissions token behavior, and notes it is a read-only account operation. This goes beyond repeating the annotations, though it does not cover rate limits or error behavior.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and concise. However, the permission block, while useful, is verbose and could be compressed; the description reads as a mix of concise summary and raw documentation text rather than a tightly structured brief.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned summary fields (name, description, URL, counts). Combined with the permission requirements and read-only designation, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly. It does not explain what the record counts represent or how the summary relates to sibling analytics tools, but the core is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'account' parameter fully, including the note that it selects credentials rather than a remote account ID. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Retrieves) and resource (summary of the Wistia account), and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, description, URL, and record counts. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_account_stats or get_account_usage, which cover different aspects of the account.

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 usage (fetch the current account's summary) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over get_account_stats, get_account_usage, or list_accounts. Some routing is inferable from the enumerated fields, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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