flex_account_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format ('JSON array of account info objects, one per FlexStatement') and input source, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, nor does it address error handling or edge cases like malformed XML. For a parse tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise, with only a purpose statement, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information with no redundancy. The structure is clean and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the input source and the shape of the output ('JSON array of account info objects, one per FlexStatement'). It lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but given the tool's simplicity and existing output schema, this is not a major gap.

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 description adds meaningful context for the sole parameter xml_content by describing it as a 'Raw Flex XML string' and specifying it comes from flex_run_query or flex_get_statement. This goes beyond the schema's minimal title 'Xml Content' and helps the agent understand the expected format and provenance.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Extract account metadata from a Flex XML report.' The verb 'extract' and the specific resource (account metadata) make it clear. It does not explicitly compare to sibling parse tools, but the focus on account-level metadata distinguishes it from tools like flex_parse_trades or flex_parse_positions.

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 by mentioning that xml_content comes from flex_run_query or flex_get_statement, giving context on the input source. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tools. Usage guidance is only inferred from the tool's purpose.

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