get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds that the payload is about the connected personal account, but says nothing about what happens when no account is connected (error vs. empty result) or whether the call touches the remote service, which matters given openWorldHint=true.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the resource being returned.

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 parameterless, read-only lookup the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no statement of the returned shape or the not-connected case, which would help an agent interpret results.

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 the baseline is 4 and the schema has nothing for the description to expand on. No parameter meaning is lost.

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 ('Show') and resource ('which personal account this agent is connected to'), which clearly separates it from connect_account/disconnect_account siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the read-oriented phrasing makes the contrast obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-side companion to connect_account for checking current connection status. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether a connection must already exist.

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