get_account_requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Get'. It adds behavioral context by stating that it returns 'field definitions with validation rules', which goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and explains what the agent can expect from the response.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and immediately state the return type. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or information repetition from the schema.

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 read-only requirements tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and return value. It could explicitly mention its role as a preliminary step to create_recipient, but it is otherwise complete for the complexity level.

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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (source, target, sourceAmount) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond referencing a 'currency route', which lightly relates to source/target but is not detailed.

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 tool gets required fields for creating a recipient, with the specific context of a currency route. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_recipient and get_recipient by focusing on requirements rather than execution or retrieval of an existing recipient.

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 context is clear: use this tool to retrieve required fields before creating a recipient. It implies the pre-creation flow but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as when not to use it or when to use a different tool.

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