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 but provides minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, whether there are rate limits, what format the detailed information returns, or any error conditions. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the lack of behavioral details is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. For a simple retrieval tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate and efficient.

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 for a tool that presumably returns detailed account information. It doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, what format it returns, or any behavioral constraints. For a financial account tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what information agents can expect to receive.

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 single parameter 'accountId' clearly documented as 'ID of the Brex account'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not exceptional parameter documentation.

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 distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_all_accounts' - both appear to retrieve account information, but this one seems focused on a single account while the sibling retrieves all accounts. The description could be more specific about what 'detailed information' includes.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_all_accounts' and 'get_transactions' available, there's no indication whether this tool should be used for single account details versus the sibling for multiple accounts, or what specific use cases warrant this tool. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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