Get account detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and it pays off by revealing type-dispatching behavior and product-specific results (balances/cards, credit dates, pension balances). It does not describe auth, errors, or response shape, but for a read-style account-detail call the disclosed behavior is meaningful and not merely a paraphrase of the name.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the scope is front-loaded before the type-specific details and the source of the key parameter. The type-specific list is dense but each clause distinguishes a branch of behavior.

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?

The description gives enough to call the tool for a chosen product: what it returns per type, that portalId comes from bg_list_accounts, and that it is a single-account full-detail retrieval. It is not a 5 because there is no output schema and the description omits any mention of response structure or the includeTransit behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 documents both portalId and includeTransit. The description only restates the portalId source in the last sentence and adds no additional meaning for includeTransit, so it earns the baseline 3.

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 names the resource ('one product') and the verb ('Full detail... dispatching on its type'), and enumerates type-specific return fields, so an agent can form a concrete model of the call. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling bg_get_pension even though pension is covered here, so it stops short of a 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 instruction to get portalId from bg_list_accounts gives a clear prerequisite, and 'Full detail for one product' implies the main use case. However, it does not state when to prefer an alternative such as bg_get_pension, bg_list_accounts, or bg_list_transactions, nor any exclusions, leaving usage conditions mostly implied.

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