pennylane_get_account

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context (no auth, error, or rate-limit notes), which is acceptable given the annotation coverage but earns no bonus.

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 that states action, resource, and the required key with zero waste.

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 simple single-parameter read with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations carry safety. It is nearly complete, though it could have differentiated itself from the list sibling.

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% and there is only one parameter whose meaning is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'par son identifiant' merely restates what the schema already says, adding no new formatting or lookup semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Récupère le détail d'un compte comptable par son identifiant.' An agent can distinguish it from list_accounts, create_account, and update_account. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the singular-retrieval semantics are clear.

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 by the single-identifier semantics: fetch one account when its id is known. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pennylane_list_accounts, nor any exclusion or prerequisite note.

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