get_expenses_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the surprising scope: despite the expenses name, it serves any account and covers income/group-7 accounts omitted by list_expenses_accounts. However, it does not describe return shape, error behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the important scope caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly, including its unusual account coverage and the id requirement. It could mention the returned account object or invalid-id behavior, but the key selection context is present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single accountId parameter is already well documented in the schema, including the distinction between Holded id and PGC accountNum. The description reinforces that this is a Holded id but adds no syntax or format details beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get a single account') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_expenses_accounts by noting it serves ANY account, including income/group-7 accounts that the list endpoint omits. An agent can select it correctly when it already has an id.

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?

It states the key usage condition ('when you already know its id') and names list_expenses_accounts as the contrasting alternative for listing. It does not explicitly say to use the list tool when the id is unknown, but the contrast is clear enough.

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