get_account_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read operation and it states the resource is account-owned and scoped by token ID, but it says nothing about permissions required, rate limits, or that this is non-destructive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, key, and returned fields all appear immediately with zero wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, status, policies, condition), plus the account-scoping is clear. Only minor gaps remain, such as call semantics like error/not-found behavior or auth needs.

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 100%, so both account_id and token_id are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the lookup key is the token ID but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Get details of a specific account-owned API token by token ID'), which distinguishes a single-resource fetch from the list-oriented siblings like list_account_tokens. However, it never names that sibling or any other alternative to explicitly differentiate itself.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching one token when its ID is known, versus listing tokens. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to list_account_tokens or verify_account_token.

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