beel_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description correctly adds value by disclosing the return shape (status, access_level, claim link, conditional company_id) and the scope 'you provisioned'. It provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and efficient, with the primary content in the first sentence and the endpoint in the second. There is no redundant or unnecessary text, and it is well-structured for quick agent consumption.

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 GET operation with one parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the return contents and the scoping rule. It does not include error cases or authorization details, but these are not critical for a read-only tool with minimal complexity. Overall it is adequately 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?

The schema has one parameter, account_id, with format uuid. The description only mentions it in the endpoint, providing no additional semantic detail. Since the parameter is self-explanatory and the description does not explicitly compensate for the 0% schema coverage, the baseline applies. The meaning is evident from the name and context, so a 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 the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'one account you provisioned', and it lists the key fields returned. It distinguishes from the list tool by specifying a single account, and the name and description align well. It is clearly distinct from siblings like beel_get_by_id because it explicitly mentions account and its returned shape.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single account you provisioned, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_accounts or other getters. It does not provide exclusions or mention alternative tools. The guidance is inferred from the wording, not explicit.

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