get_bank_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and 'Read-only' is a genuine, useful disclosure about the operation's safety profile. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID doesn't exist, or any rate considerations, leaving substantial gaps for an un-annotated tool.

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 terse sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the read-only trait follows immediately. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a minimal one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it scopes the resource, the key, and the safety profile. It stops short of describing the returned shape, though 'full details' gestures at it and no output schema constrains it.

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?

The single 'id' parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Bank account ID'), so the schema already documents it. The description only restates 'by ID' without adding format, type, or lookup-mechanics detail beyond the schema baseline.

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') and resource ('a single bank account by ID'), with the 'single... by ID' scope clearly separating it from the sibling search_bank_accounts. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but the singular/by-ID framing makes the distinction inferable.

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: 'by ID' suggests you must already have the account identifier, which routes an agent away from this tool when it needs to discover accounts. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternative named.

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