get_bank_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic get operation without mentioning error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), authorization requirements, or any side effects. It does not add value beyond the tool name and parameter naming.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is easy to parse and directly states the core action. However, it is somewhat terse and could include a hint about the parameter without sacrificing conciseness, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 very simple (one integer parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and no mention of edge cases, the description is only minimally viable. It lacks context about related resources or the meaning of a bank account in this system, making it adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which aligns with the bank_account_id parameter, but it does not explain what the ID represents, how to obtain it, or whether it is a global identifier or scoped to an association. The schema only provides the type integer, and the description adds minimal semantic 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'bank account', and the method 'by ID', which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_bank_accounts (which lists all) and get_bank_account_transaction (which retrieves transactions).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenario like 'use this to fetch a single account' or point to list_bank_accounts for enumeration. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'specific ... by ID'.

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