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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main addition is the underlying GET /accounts/{account} endpoint and the shape of the returned fields. It says nothing about error behavior for an unknown slug, permissions, or rate limits, which would raise it further.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and returned fields, with the endpoint appended as compact technical context. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields (name, phone numbers, type, links) is genuinely useful, and the endpoint corroborates the read semantics. A simple single-parameter read doesn't need much more, though error cases for a bad slug remain unaddressed.

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 the single parameter is well documented in the schema, including its source (the `slug` field from textus_list_accounts). The description only restates 'by slug' and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (one account) plus the identifying key (slug) and the fields returned (name, phone numbers, type, links). It implicitly separates itself from the many list_* siblings by emphasizing a single account, though it never names textus_list_accounts directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is clearly the single-record counterpart to listing accounts, and the schema notes the slug comes from textus_list_accounts. The description states no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance itself.

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