tempo_get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description presents a read-only retrieve operation with no contradiction. It adds the useful key-vs-id routing caveat, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens for a nonexistent id. This is acceptable 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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds the essential routing caveat in the second. It does not duplicate schema content.

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 read-only single-account getter with fully documented parameters and a readOnly annotation, the description is complete. It states the operation, the identifier type, and how to convert a key to an id. The return value is obvious from the verb and resource, so the lack of an output schema is not a significant gap.

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%, so the schema already explains both id and view in detail. The prose repeats that id is numeric and not a key, but adds little beyond the schema's existing description. It does not provide additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('a single Tempo account'), and the lookup criterion ('numeric id'). It also distinguishes this tool from key-based account operations and from tempo_search_accounts, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicitly tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate: if it has a key, it should first call tempo_search_accounts with keys to get an id. It also notes that update/delete operations are key-based, which prevents misuse. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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