Joint account details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond restating the title and the 'two people' scope; it does not say whether it errors on non-joint accounts, what identity/consent is required, or what data is returned.

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 short sentence with no filler and the distinguishing scope ('joint', 'both people') front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.

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 no-parameter, read-only lookup the description is minimally viable, but with no output schema it should say what the returned details cover (names, identifiers, roles) or how it behaves for sole accounts. That gap keeps it at 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 fragment 'Joint account holders: details of both people on the account' identifies the resource and a distinguishing scope (joint, two holders), which separates it from get_account_holder and get_individual_details. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, so the action (retrieve) and the exact entity returned (the joint account record vs. the two holders) remain slightly ambiguous.

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 versus the many sibling lookups (get_account_holder, get_individual_details, get_business_details). The agent must infer that this applies only to jointly-held accounts from the name alone.

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