Get your account

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the return-surface enumeration (restriction flag, catalogue openness, managed service), which tells the agent this is a broad account snapshot and not a targeted lookup.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and every clause after the colon names a distinct piece of returned data rather than padding. No waste.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so field-by-field. Missing only the shape/format of responses (single object vs nested) and any auth failure behavior, which is a minor gap for a zero-arg read.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline for parameterless tools applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 names the resource (the caller's own account) and enumerates what it surfaces: profiles, buyer/seller balances, seller restriction state, catalogue openness, managed service. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the narrower wallet siblings (get_buyer_wallet, get_seller_wallet), though it never says so explicitly.

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?

'Use this when you start working with an account, or need its profiles, balances or access' gives a concrete trigger condition rather than leaving usage implied. It stops short of naming an alternative to pick instead (e.g. get_seller_wallet for balance-only reads), so no explicit exclusions.

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