GetAccount

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on what is returned, whether a missing account errors, or plan scoping—so it contributes almost no behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('single') front-loaded and zero waste. It borders on under-specification for a tool with a plan_id default, but nothing is padded.

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 read-only getter with a complete input schema, full annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient—return values and plan defaulting are handled elsewhere. Only the lack of any when-to-use routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (account_id, plan_id with its 'last-used' default and ListPlans reference) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond 'by ID', so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single account') and the lookup key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from Ynab_ListAccounts. It does not name the sibling, but the singular 'single account' implicitly contrasts with the list tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of Ynab_ListAccounts or the other Get* siblings; the only routing hint ('Use ListAccounts to find it') lives in the schema, not the description. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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