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

With empty annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Returns' implies a read operation, and the clarification that account_fk is a database ID (not an address) and may not be 0 is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free or describe error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 opening two sentences repeat essentially the same information ('Returns detailed account information' vs 'Returns detailed account information and balances'), which is redundant. The @param section is well-structured, but the redundancy detracts from conciseness.

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 info tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers all inputs with provenance, clarifies a potential pitfall (account_fk as int not string), and states the return type. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing error conditions or explicitly confirming a read-only nature, but overall it is sufficient.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully by explaining all three parameters: what they are, where to obtain them, and the constraint on account_fk. This exceeds the baseline and provides actionable detail.

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 'Returns detailed account information and balances,' identifying it as the account info/read tool among siblings like account_send or account_buy. However, 'detailed account information' is somewhat vague, and the first two sentences are redundant.

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 provides implicit usage guidance by documenting where to obtain token and account_fk (from /access/login and /wallet/accounts_list), suggesting a workflow order. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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