get_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states what the tool returns implicitly ('Get details') but doesn't disclose whether this is read-only, what data shape is returned beyond what the output schema provides, whether it raises errors for nonexistent accounts, or any edge-case behavior. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, the 'Args:' section with a single parameter is slightly redundant structure given there's only one param; it adds formatting overhead rather than semantic value. Still, it's efficient overall with little waste.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and this is a simple single-parameter read operation, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the purpose and the param formats adequately. However, with no annotations, it could usefully state read-only behavior or error conditions (e.g., what happens on nonexistent accounts). For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally 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, and it does. The param description explains the three accepted name formats (full path like 'Assets:Bank:Checking', %short GUID, or full 32-char GUID), which adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema field labeled 'name'. This is genuinely useful semantic content.

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 'Get details for a specific account by name' with a specific verb (Get) and resource (account details). It distinguishes from siblings like list_accounts and get_balance, though it doesn't explicitly reference sibling alternatives. The %short GUID and full 32-char GUID formats add useful specificity.

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 context (looking up a specific account by name/ref/GUID) but doesn't explicitly disambiguate from siblings like list_accounts or get_balance. The param description does clarify the name format options, which is helpful, but there are no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instructions.

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