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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, error behavior, or return shape), but for a simple read-only get operation, it does not contradict the annotations. It meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the identifier criterion. Zero waste, ideal structure for a simple get tool.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is complete. It could mention the return object explicitly, but that is implicit in a 'get' operation. Minor gap: no mention of not-found behavior, but that is likely handled by the platform. Overall adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both id and company already described. The description merely repeats 'by Id' without adding syntax, format, or interplay details beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('account'), and a specific criterion ('by Id'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account_list (list all) and search_accounts (search). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 the tool is used when you have a specific account Id, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_account_list or search_accounts, nor when to avoid this tool. The distinction is inferable from the name and description, but not stated outright, so guidance is present but not explicit.

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