hcm_get_bank_account

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds no contradiction. 'SENSITIVE gate' contributes useful context that the data may require elevated permissions or special handling, but it is vague and does not explain what the gate entails or what happens if access is denied.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the core operation, and every word is purposeful. The 'SENSITIVE gate' label is cryptic and could have been phrased more clearly, but the overall structure has no unnecessary filler.

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 single-parameter read-only getter, the basic shape of the call is clear, and the schema covers the required input. However, the description does not explain the return value (there is no output schema), the meaning of 'SENSITIVE gate,' or how this tool differs from hcm_search_bank_accounts, leaving an agent without enough context for confident invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented bankAccountId parameter but did not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about the ID format, where to obtain it, or how it is used to select the bank account.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get bank account.' It identifies the tool as a single-record retrieval operation, and the 'get' versus 'search' naming in the sibling list helps distinguish it from hcm_search_bank_accounts. However, it does not explicitly say it fetches one account by ID, leaving some detail to the schema and tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus hcm_search_bank_accounts or other bank-related tools. 'SENSITIVE gate' hints at access restrictions but does not explain when the tool is appropriate or what preconditions apply. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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