Get account detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose important traits: the response is polymorphic (dispatch on account type) and savings includes associated debit cards plus pending purchases. It omits auth/session requirements and error behavior, but for a read-only getter the return-shape disclosure is the material gap it correctly fills.

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?

Effectively one dense sentence plus a short actionable directive; the dispatch behavior is front-loaded so an agent learns the key trait immediately. The first sentence is long but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so per account type. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and only peripheral concerns like session/auth state are left implicit, which is reasonable given the sibling login tools.

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%, and the schema already explains includeTransit's default, currency/pending meaning, and the portalId source. The description adds the 'get portalId from bg_list_accounts' pointer, which duplicates the schema's own text, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (account detail) and goes further by enumerating what each account type returns, so an agent knows the payload shape varies by product. It also names the sibling bg_list_accounts as the source of the required id, making it distinguishable from the listing tool.

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 directive 'Get the portalId from bg_list_accounts' establishes the entry-point dependency and implicitly frames this as the detail call that follows listing. However it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not resolve the overlap with the sibling bg_get_pension even though the pension is described here.

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