get_account_slots

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Read slots') with no side effects disclosed, which is consistent with the tool name. However, it doesn't detail behaviors like error handling for missing accounts, whether the optional key parameter returning null indicates absence, or any permission requirements. For a read-only lookup, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 tight and well-organized. It opens with a one-line purpose, adds context in a supporting paragraph, then documents the two parameters with precise, actionable details. No filler, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the primary purpose statement.

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 straightforward read tool with an output schema present, this is well covered. It explains the core concept (slots as key-value metadata), documents both parameters thoroughly despite no schema coverage, and the output schema presumably describes the return shape. The main gap is the absence of behavioral notes like what happens on unknown account or key, though the output schema may cover some of this.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate fully, and it does well. It explains the 'account' parameter with three distinct accepted formats (full path, %short GUID, full 32-char GUID) and gives a concrete example. It also clarifies 'key' semantics: specific key retrieval vs. omitting to return all slots. This adds substantial value over the bare input schema.

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 tool 'Reads slots (custom metadata) from an account' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_account_slot (write) and delete_account_slot (delete) semantically, and further clarifies the resource type with detailed field-level context (APR, credit limit, reward rates).

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 defines what slots are and when you'd use them (key-value metadata), which gives context for usage. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives, but sibling tools set/delete slots are clearly the write counterparts, so the usage domain is reasonably inferred. Could be improved with explicit exclusion of the write variants.

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