get_accounts_by_id

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the accounts must be accessible to this token, and the call bypasses the default related account. It does not discuss return format or pagination, but the output schema exists to cover returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: action, count/auth scope, and the default-account bypass nuance. No wasted wording.

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?

This is a simple read-only lookup with one parameter, annotations, and an output schema. The description covers purpose, scope, auth constraints, and a key behavioral nuance. It could say more about handling invalid or inaccessible IDs, but for this complexity level it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning. It explains that account_ids are IDs of accounts accessible to this token, restates the 1-to-100 count range, and clarifies that the IDs are used directly rather than via the default related account. That is substantial semantic value for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (balances and currencies) scoped to specified account IDs. It implicitly distinguishes itself from default-account siblings by stating it uses account_ids directly regardless of the default related account, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 context is implied: call this when you have one or more account IDs and need their balances/currencies. It notes the 1-to-100 ID limit and token-accessibility constraint, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or exclusions beyond the default-related-account note.

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