investec_pb_get_authorisation_setup_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral transparency. It implies a read operation via the verb 'Get' and explains the practical consequence, but it does not explicitly state safety (read-only), required permissions, or potential side effects. The description adds some context beyond the name but lacks full disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a reason for use. Every part is informative, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

For a simple get operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and usage context well. A minor gap is the lack of any hint about the return structure, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need.

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 both parameters having basic descriptions ('The unique account identifier'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'authorization setup details', and specifies the scope 'for a profile and account'. It adds critical context about its importance for batch payment approval, distinguishing it from sibling tools like investec_pb_get_pending_transactions or investec_pb_list_accounts.

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 explicitly indicates when this tool is critical (for understanding who needs to approve a batch payment), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools do not directly overlap in purpose.

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