account_info

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations and basic return statement convey, but it does not contradict them either.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's return value.

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 no-parameter read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is that 'account data' is not enumerated, and there is no output schema to clarify the return shape, but the identity mention provides reasonable context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Per the rubric, the no-parameter case receives a baseline of 4.

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 clear verb ('Return') and identifies the resource: sipgate account data plus the authenticated user's identity. 'Account data' is somewhat broad, but the identity clause makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like list_users and get_settings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_users or get_settings. The intended use is implied by the description, but there are no explicit context signals, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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