get-account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns detailed information and mentions content, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Since it is a read operation, the lack of explicit safety confirmation is acceptable but not ideal.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action and resource, and adds relevant detail without waste. Every 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 the tool has no output schema, the description provides useful context about the returned data (billing contact info and linked metadata). It does not explain the structure or error cases, but for a simple get operation with one parameter, 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?

The only parameter 'accountId' is fully described in the schema with format guidance. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific account by ID, and the distinction from the sibling tool 'get-account-by-email' is clear. The verb 'Get' and resource 'account' are precise, and the description adds value by noting the content (billing contact info, linked metadata).

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 implies usage when an account ID is available, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus 'get-account-by-email' or other siblings. No exclusionary or alternative usage is provided, relying on the sibling name to imply the difference.

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