get_account

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying 'detailed information' and 'specific account', which implies a focused retrieval operation, but does not elaborate on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') without unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple retrieval), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter details, which are minor gaps in this context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'specific account' and implies parameters for identification, but does not explain the meaning of 'budget_id' or 'account_id' or their formats. This leaves gaps, but the baseline is 3 as the description hints at parameter roles without full compensation.

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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information for a specific account', making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_accounts' or explain how it differs (e.g., retrieving a single account vs. listing multiple), which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_accounts' or 'get_budget'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a budget_id and account_id) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter requirements alone.

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