get_gl_account_scheme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only retrieval (via 'Retrieve') and describes the exact return contents, including active/inactive status. It does not mention authorization requirements or potential large response sizes, but for a simple scheme lookup, the coverage is adequate and honest.

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 description is three sentences: 1) what the tool does, 2) what it returns, 3) when to use it and the alternative. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, every sentence carries useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: it explains the return format and use cases. It distinguishes from the most likely sibling tool (get_gl_accounts) and provides enough semantic detail to select it correctly. There is no indication of pagination or hidden complexity, so the description 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?

The input schema already documents the only parameter (administrationId) with a clear description and default behavior. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds no new parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3. The description's mention of 'for an administration' gently reinforces the schema but does not expand on it.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('complete GL account scheme'), and the scope ('for an administration'). It lists the returned fields (account code, type, subtype, description, status), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also differentiates from the sibling 'get_gl_accounts' by explicitly noting that tool is for balances.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to validate GL codes before booking or to build account pickers.' It also names an alternative, 'For current balances use get_gl_accounts instead,' which tells the agent exactly when to choose a different tool. This satisfies both positive and negative usage context.

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