Account identifiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is fully covered. The description adds the concrete return payload (sort code, account number, IBAN, BIC, other identifiers), which is useful beyond the annotations but not deep behavioral context.

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 with no filler; the parenthetical '(and any other identifiers)' usefully signals variability in the payload. Efficient, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's field enumeration carries the return-value burden, and it does so adequately. For a simple read-only lookup with full annotation coverage and a fully-documented parameter, this is close to complete.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already explains the accountUid fallback chain (STARLING_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT_UID, single account, PRIMARY). The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable when the schema does the work.

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 (gets) and resource (account identifiers), and enumerates the returned fields — sort code, account number, IBAN, BIC. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_account_balance or get_account_holder, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other account-related getters in the sibling list (get_account_balance, get_account_holder, get_sole_trader_details). The schema's default-account note is the only routing hint, and it lives in the schema, not the description.

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