Accounts Get Account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds no behavioral disclosure beyond what is structured. It does not describe missing-account behavior, pagination, or how output_mode and fields affect the result, and it only repeats the obvious read operation.

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 trivially short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than concise clarity. A single sentence that restates the title does not earn its place.

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-by-id tool with strong annotations, the combination of schema and required account_id is almost enough to invoke it. However, there is no output schema and no description of return shape or relationship to list_accounts, so the definition is only minimally 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 input schema already provides meaningful descriptions for fields and output_mode, and account_id is self-explanatory from its name and required status. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but with 67% schema coverage and low parameter complexity, the schema carries that burden adequately.

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 is a word-for-word restatement of the title ('Get Account' vs 'Get account.') and adds no detail about what an account is or that this retrieves a single account by account_id. It does nothing to differentiate the operation from siblings such as accounts_list_accounts, accounts_get_account_history, or accounts_get_net_worth_performance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent is not told to use it when it already has an account_id and needs a single account object, nor is any sibling or exclusion mentioned; only the schema's required account_id provides an implicit hint.

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