get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does clearly indicate a read operation ('Get' a single account), which conveys a non-destructive act, and it disambiguates the return scope via 'single.' However, it does not mention possible failure modes (e.g., 404 for a missing ID), or describe the shape of the returned data, or any side-effects/state guarantees. Those are missing but the core behavioral signal is present.

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 consists of a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding, and the sentence is short enough to be parsed quickly in a long sibling list.

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 tool with exactly one parameter and no suspense in schema or annotations, the description fully specifies the required operative context: known ID, get a single account, and returns an account. It does not mention error behavior or response fields, and since there is no output schema, an agent may still be unclear about the exact shape of the account object, but the core requirements are complete enough for a simple lookup.

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 schema provides only `id` as a required string with no description or constraints; the description compensates by explicitly linking the parameter to the account ID. It does not add extra semantic details like accepted ID formats, whether the ID is a UUID, or how to identify it (Path vs query), but the sole parameter is sufficiently mapped for a basic call.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single account by ID.' This clearly separates it from list_accounts (which returns many accounts) and from mutation tools like create/update/delete_account. The word 'single' provides an explicit scope that distinguishes this retrieval from list across the sibling set.

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 implies a strong use case: an agent that holds an account ID and needs exactly one account should call this tool, which is contrasted by list_accounts for fetching all accounts. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusions, and no mention of situations in which get_rule/get_budget would be more appropriate. The guidance is inferred, not stated.

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