beel_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields, which is useful since no output schema exists, but it does not disclose anything about error behavior, rate limits, or the non-disclosure semantics that live in the schema.

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?

One dense sentence describing the return shape followed by the endpoint line, with the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the mid-sentence field list makes the core noun phrase slightly harder to scan.

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 single-resource read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and naming the HTTP endpoint. Nothing critical is missing, though conditional fields (company_id only when one company) could be spelled out further.

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%, and the account_id schema entry is notably rich (UUID, plus the non-existence non-disclosure rule). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns one account you provisioned') and differentiates from the sibling beel_list_accounts by noting it returns a single account with the same shape as the list. The return fields (status, access_level, claim link state, company_id) further pin down what this tool is for.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single account when you have its account_id, and the mention of 'the same shape the list returns' gestures at beel_list_accounts. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus the list endpoint, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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