beel_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying which fields are returned, including the conditional presence of company_id, and noting the response mirrors the list shape. No contradictions found.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The sentence front-loads the core behavior and response contents, and the endpoint is appended as a practical reference. Every sentence 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It describes the return fields and even notes a conditional edge case (company_id only when exactly one NIF). It does not describe error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read operation with no output schema.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description carries the burden. The endpoint GET /v1/accounts/{account_id} clearly identifies account_id as a path parameter, and the phrase 'one account you provisioned' gives semantic context about what kind of ID it is. For a single uuid parameter, this is sufficient.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource ('one account you provisioned') and differentiates from the list operation by emphasizing the singular resource and providing the endpoint. The detail about the response shape and included fields makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Clearly implies this is the tool to use when you need a single account by ID, especially given the endpoint and 'one account' phrasing. It references the list shape, which helps an agent relate it to beel_list_accounts, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state exclusion conditions.

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