Accounts — Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: balances are in milliunits and last_reconciled_at is never written by the API. It does not discuss auth or error behavior, but the domain-specific disclosure is valuable.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource in the first clause, zero filler, and the milliunits note is a compact, high-value unit clarification. The final sentence on last_reconciled_at is longer than needed but still earns its place as non-obvious 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-only semantics are well covered. However, the unexplained plan_id parameter and absent account_id format leave a real gap for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only says 'by ID'. account_id format and plan_id (nullable, default null, likely the budget selector) are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (a single account) scoped by ID, and the singular framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling accounts_list. An agent can route between accounts_get and accounts_list without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'single account by ID', but the description never names accounts_list as the alternative or states when to prefer one over the other. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, leaving selection to inference.

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