get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially discharges it by naming the payload ('balances, hierarchy, and metadata') and by using 'Get', which implies a side-effect-free read, but it never explicitly states the operation is non-mutating, nor what happens on a missing/invalid ID.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The identity/scope information is front-loaded and the return-value note follows, which is the right ordering.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is fetched, by what key, and roughly what comes back. It is only thin on failure/permission behavior, which is minor for a simple lookup.

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% and the sole parameter is documented in the schema as 'The GL Account ID to retrieve'. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single chart of accounts entry'), and the retrieval key ('by ID'). The word 'single' plus 'by ID' implicitly separates it from the sibling search_accounts, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 takes an ID, so it is for looking up an account you already have the identifier for, as opposed to search_accounts which finds accounts by criteria. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g., how to obtain an account_id) is stated.

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