getMemberAccountType

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it filters out invalid or inactive account types and explains that UTA/UMA accounts have different account type combinations. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies what results to expect.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, important notes, account type combinations, account types, and filtering rules. The first sentence is front-loaded, and each section earns its place by clarifying behavior and return values without fluff.

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?

The description thoroughly covers account type semantics and filtering behavior, which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it omits the memberIds input format and does not address edge cases like invalid IDs or whether the parameter is required, leaving the tool not fully callable with certainty.

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 only parameter, memberIds, has no schema description and schema coverage is 0%. The description says multiple member IDs can be queried but does not specify the required format, such as comma-separated values or a JSON-encoded string, leaving an agent to guess how to construct the argument.

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 action and resource: 'Get account type information for specified member IDs.' It also enumerates the exact account types and account type combinations, which gives precise meaning. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar account-related siblings like getAccountInfo or getAccountInstruments.

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 some context such as 'Use master or sub-account's API key' and notes that multiple member IDs can be queried. It does not, however, explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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