Get current account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what 'authenticated account' includes and ties it to connection verification, which is beyond the structured 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?

Two concise sentences with the return payload front-loaded and the use case in the second sentence. There is no filler or repetition of the title, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the fields returned, the use case, and the operational context. Although there is no output schema, the description fills that gap by enumerating the expected fields.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on the call's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('authenticated account') and enumerates the fields returned (name, email, account id, team). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling file/folder tools, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: 'Good for confirming the server is connected to the right Dropbox.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling set makes it obvious that this is the account-inspection tool, and the guidance is sufficient for a zero-parameter call.

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