get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing how it behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a specific account'). It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without wasting tokens.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error handling), and output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, such as hinting at return values or constraints.

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?

The description mentions 'a specific account' but doesn't add meaning beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters (budget_id and account_id) clearly. The description doesn't explain parameter relationships (e.g., account_id is scoped to budget_id) or usage context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific account'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_accounts' or 'get_budget', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single account by ID rather than listing multiple accounts or fetching other resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing both budget_id and account_id), contrast with 'list_accounts' for multiple accounts, or specify use cases like retrieving account details for editing or reporting. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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