get_channel_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what kind of data is returned, such as storage allocation, sub-account counts, and address details. It does not discuss permissions or error conditions, but for a read-only get operation this is acceptable.

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 that names the action, the resource, the lookup key, and the important output categories. There is no filler or redundant 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 read-only lookup with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and return-content highlights. It does not describe exact response formatting or the effect of includeDeletedSubAccounts, but those are largely covered by the schema and the operation's simplicity.

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%, so the individual parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra meaning to channelAccountId or includeDeletedSubAccounts beyond what the schema states, which is fine given full schema coverage.

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 identifies the operation ('Get'), the specific resource ('Channel Account by ID'), and the added value ('detailed information including storage allocation, sub-account counts, and address details'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_channel_accounts, which filter or list entities.

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 establishes clear usage context: call this when you need a single Channel Account's details identified by ID, not when you need a list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'by ID' contrast with sibling list tools is clear enough.

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