get_account_details

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 states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely accesses sensitive account information.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., balance, settings, transactions), the return format, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured account data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'accountId' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or sourcing guidance), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a Brex account'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_all_accounts' (which likely lists multiple accounts) or 'get_budget' (which focuses on budget data), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an account ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_all_accounts' for bulk retrieval or 'get_budget' for financial details, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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