paper_account_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that values are locally simulated and that equity is mark-to-market, which hints at why idempotentHint is false, but it does not say what happens on an unknown account_id or whether marks must be refreshed first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the returned state with no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing "and assumptions" is vague and unexplained.

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 trivial one-parameter read with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this is nearly sufficient. What's missing is the undefined "assumptions" field and any note on how mark-to-market values are derived or when they go stale.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Local simulation account ID"), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond it; baseline 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?

A specific verb ("Read") plus the exact resource contents: cash, positions, mark-to-market equity, and assumptions for a simulated paper account. It is clearly a state-read rather than a mutation, but it never names the nearby siblings (paper_account_list, paper_export, paper_mark_prices) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus paper_account_list (all accounts), paper_export, or paper_trade. The only implicit cue is the required account_id, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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