bridge_get_virtual_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), authentication requirements, or return format. This is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information. It follows best practices for brevity.

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 a simple getter with a clear input schema, but the description is minimal and does not provide usage guidance or behavioral context beyond the bare action. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps in understanding error handling and when to choose this over list_virtual_accounts. It is minimally complete but not rich.

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%, with both parameters (customer_id and virtual_account_id) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain why customer_id is needed or how the two IDs relate, but the schema covers the basic semantics, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (virtual account), and the specific method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_list_virtual_accounts, which retrieves multiple accounts. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 usage: use this tool when you have a specific virtual_account_id and need its details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_list_virtual_accounts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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