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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by describing the return payload (individual/company account, contact, addresses, consent, custom fields, membership status, timestamps) and the underlying GET endpoint, which is valuable because no output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return details. No filler; every clause contributes information.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description must compensate by explaining returns, which it does with a useful field inventory. It does not cover not-found or error behavior, but for a read-only single-record fetch with a fully documented parameter and readOnlyHint, it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and account_id is documented there as "The account id." The description does not add format, validation, or other semantic detail beyond the endpoint path, so the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one account in full") and distinguishes the single-account scope from sibling listing/search tools. The returned entity types (individualAccount or companyAccount) and field list make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Implies usage when a single account is needed and an id is available, but never states when to use this over neon_list_accounts, neon_search, or neon_get_organization_profile. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit routing guidance.

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