get_csm_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope of the response (contacts and open cases count) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, authentication requirements, or pagination. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that states the action and key inclusions without any waste. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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 simple getter with a single parameter and read-only annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the response will include (contacts and open cases count) and there is no output schema to explain. It could be slightly more explicit about the full set of fields, but it suffices for the tool's complexity.

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 has only one parameter with a full description ('Account name or sys_id'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('customer account'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_csm_accounts (list vs. get) and get_csm_contact (account vs. contact). It also specifies the key contents ('contacts and open cases count'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides clear context about what to expect (account details, contacts, open cases count), implicitly indicating when to use this tool over list_csm_accounts or get_csm_contact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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