get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly shows this is a GET operation and signals read-only behavior, and it explains where query values go. However, it avoids any mention of auth requirements, error behavior, 404 handling, or whether the call requires an existing account, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences: purpose, endpoint, and parameter placement. There is no filler, the key facts are front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and this is a simple GET-type retrieval, the description covers the necessary core: the operation, the endpoint, and where to put IDs and filters. It does not explicitly document the `body` parameter or state that the account ID is required, but those are fairly low-risk gaps because the endpoint template makes the ID requirement obvious.

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 0% and the schema itself is a generic set of nullable objects. The description adds real meaning by mapping `path_params` to route IDs and `query` to filtering, pagination, sorting, and include values. The `body` parameter is left unexplained, which prevents a top score, but the most useful parameter semantics are provided.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Get an account's details') and backs it with a specific endpoint, `GET /accounts/{accountId}`. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `list_accounts` and `get_account_summary_report`, even though those are not named.

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?

It gives useful context about how to construct the request ('Put route IDs in path_params...') but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as `list_accounts` or `get_account_summary_report`. The intended use is inferable, but the description does not provide the when-to-use versus when-not-to guidance of a top-tier description.

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