get_account_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of what is read (integrations, issues, attributed synthetic evidence), which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose volume, pagination, or auth requirements, but with an output schema present the return shape is handled elsewhere.

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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. The comma-separated resource list is slightly dense but every element earns its place.

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?

The tool has a full output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain returns or safety. What it lacks is positioning among the seven siblings, leaving the agent without guidance on sequencing. Adequate but with a clear gap for a context-priming read tool.

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 0% and the single parameter account_id carries no description in either place. The description mentions 'for an account' but never explains the identifier's form (ID vs name, source system). With only one parameter the burden is light, but the definition still does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource set: app/platform integrations, issues, and attributed synthetic evidence for an account. This distinguishes it from list_accounts (which enumerates accounts) and triage_issue, though it does not explicitly name any sibling. Purpose is understandable without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite a crowded sibling set (check_readiness, triage_issue, friction_digest). Usage is only weakly implied by the resource list. An agent must guess whether this is a first-step context gatherer or a follow-up to something else.

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