Get bank account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the key behavioral safety traits. The description confirms it returns data but adds no extra behavioral context such as not-found behavior, response format, or authorization requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, direct sentence communicates the core operation with no filler or redundant wording. The essential qualifiers 'single' and 'by id' are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 single-parameter read operation with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient to select and invoke the tool. The only minor gap is the absence of response-shape or error-behavior details, but the low complexity and clear purpose make this acceptable.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter ('Bank account id.'). The description merely restates 'by id' and adds no new semantic detail beyond what the input schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('a single bank account') along with the lookup criterion ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like billingo_list_bank_accounts, which returns multiple accounts, and from other get-by-id tools for different entities.

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 clearly implies this tool is for fetching exactly one bank account when its id is known, which is the appropriate context versus listing bank accounts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the single-by-id phrasing provides enough contextual guidance for a simple getter.

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