pylon_get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action is a read ('Get') and specifies the retrieval key, but it does not disclose potential errors (e.g., not found), authorization requirements, or return format. For a simple get-by-ID tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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 compact sentence that fully communicates the core function without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the essential usage. It does not describe the return value, but for a 'get by ID' operation the result is reasonably implied as the requested account object. Slightly more detail about error cases would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 100% — the single parameter 'account_id' already has a clear description ('The unique identifier of the account'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with a singular resource 'account' and explicitly identifies the lookup mechanism ('by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pylon_list_accounts (listing multiple accounts) and pylon_create_account/pylon_update_account.

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 implied usage is 'when you have an account ID and need the corresponding account,' but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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