get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is 'Get', but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe what the returned information includes, or mention any error cases or prerequisites beyond the parameter. It adds no behavioral context beyond the name and parameter.

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 a single, front-loaded English sentence with a parenthetical Korean translation. It wastes no words and directly states the core purpose, though the bilingual addition is redundant but not harmful.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it does not hint at the structure of the returned account information (e.g., fields like balance, margin), which would be useful in absence of an output schema. It meets the minimum viable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for accountNumber ('EA 계정 번호'), and the description redundantly mentions 'by account number'. It adds no extra meaning or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'specific trading account information' and explicitly scopes it by account number, distinguishing it from sibling tool get_accounts which suggests listing all accounts.

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 when you need a specific account's information by its account number. It implies the need for a known accountNumber, and the 'specific' wording contrasts with the plural sibling, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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