near_get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves account information, but does not describe what fields are returned, whether it returns raw JSON or a structured object, or error behavior for nonexistent accounts. The term 'detailed' hints at comprehensiveness without specifics.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is borderline under-specified rather than merely concise, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what 'detailed account information' includes (e.g., balance, storage usage, locked tokens) or at least indicate the NEAR-specific nature. The current description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke the tool and interpret results.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'accountId' with a description ('The Near account ID'). The tool description adds no additional semantic context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Get detailed account information' uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('account information'), and adds the qualifier 'detailed' to suggest a comprehensive lookup. It doesn't explicitly differentiate among sibling tools like near_get_balance or near_get_access_keys, but it's understandable as a general account data fetcher.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it's better suited for full account snapshots, whether it should be used with other NEAR tools, or any prerequisites such as the account existing on-chain.

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