get_party

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description matches. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema: ID counters collide across party types, and the ID is the human-readable GnuCash ID rather than the internal GUID. This helps the agent avoid common mistakes.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a clear Args breakdown. Each sentence provides necessary semantic information without filler or redundancy.

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 simple, has an output schema to cover return structure, has annotations covering safety, and the description thoroughly explains both required parameters. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in meaningful terms: party_type values are enumerated and its necessity is justified by ID collisions, and id is clarified with an example and a warning against confusing it with the GUID. This adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 states a specific action ('Get details') applied to a well-defined resource ('one customer, vendor, or employee') and identifies the key lookup key, the ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_parties, create_party, update_party, and delete_party.

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 provides clear context: use this for retrieving a single party by ID, not for listing or modifying. It does not explicitly name alternatives for listing, but the 'by ID' scope and the parameter explanation make the intended use clear enough. No exclusions are stated beyond that implicit scope.

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