Get financial account

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the response shape (ledger balances plus payment cards), but it says nothing about behavior on an unknown ID, whether the card list is truncated or paginated, or any auth requirements.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the most important information (the resource being looked up) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the notable return contents, which compensates for the absent output schema. Minor gaps remain around not-found behavior and whether the embedded card collection is bounded, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents financialAccountId as a Highnote financial account ID. The description adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance beyond that, which is the expected baseline-3 case when the schema carries the 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 ("look up") and resource ("a financial account") and even enumerates what the result contains: ledger balances and issued payment cards. It is clearly a read operation, distinguishing it from mutation siblings like issue_virtual_card or close_payment_card, but it never differentiates itself from the retrieval sibling get_payment_card.

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: the description tells you it looks up an account, so an agent can infer it should be called when account-level balances or attached cards are needed. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of get_payment_card or list_account_activity as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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