get_account

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety, but it must add behavioral context. The description only notes 'pertencente ao Item configurado' (belonging to configured item), which is a minor scoping detail. It fails to disclose what fields the detail includes, whether it returns errors for invalid IDs, or any system-specific behavior. The openWorldHint=true is also not explained in the description.

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 extremely short (one sentence, 11 words), which is concise and front-loaded, but it borders on under-specification. It earns a 4 because it does not waste words, but it could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (1 param) and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail the return format. However, it lacks context on what constitutes 'detail' (e.g., basic info vs. full profile), how it differs from get_account_balance, and any prerequisites or error conditions. The description is minimally adequate but incomplete for an agent to confidently select this tool over similar ones.

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 description must compensate for the undocumented 'account_id' parameter. It does not add any meaning beyond the schema's field name and UUID format—it only says the account belongs to the configured item, which is insufficient. With only one parameter, a baseline of 4 would apply if the description were rich, but here it adds almost no semantic value, so a 3 is generous.

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 states a specific verb ('Detalhe' or 'detailing') and resource ('uma conta' or 'an account'), but it does not clarify what 'detalhe' means in this context—whether it returns balance, transactions, or full account information. It also does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_account_balance or list_accounts, making it ambiguous for an agent.

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 when to use: when you need details of an account belonging to the configured item. It distinguishes from list_accounts (list vs. detail) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'pertencente ao Item configurado' and sibling names.

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