get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes transaction accounts and scenarios, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or authorization requirements. For a simple get-by-ID, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the action, the resource, and the key included data, earning a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple—one parameter, no output schema—and the description gives enough context about the return payload ('including transaction accounts and scenarios') to be useful. It doesn't cover error handling or response structure, but for a low-complexity get tool this is acceptable.

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% with the parameter 'id' documented as 'The account ID'. The description merely restates 'by ID', adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PocketSmith account by ID'), and adds scope by mentioning 'including transaction accounts and scenarios'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_account, which likely focuses on a single transaction 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 description implies the use case: when you need a full account with its transaction accounts and scenarios. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_transaction_account for a single transaction account' or 'use list_accounts for multiple accounts'.

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