wafeq_accounts_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'READ-ONLY' label adds no new safety information. The description adds only the endpoint path and 'single account' semantics, with no mention of 404 behavior, authentication needs, or return shape. This is adequate for a simple retrieve operation 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 short and front-loaded with the READ-ONLY badge and endpoint path, which is good. However, 'Retrieve account' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single account' are redundant restatements of each other and the tool name, so not every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter retrieve shape and the strong annotation coverage, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the HTTP verb, resource path, and single-account behavior. It lacks explicit guidance about when to use this versus list, but for a straightforward retrieval tool the core information 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the id parameter. The endpoint path /accounts/{id}/ implies that id is the account identifier, but the description does not explicitly explain its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves some ambiguity.

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 retrieves a single account and exposes the HTTP endpoint GET /accounts/{id}/, which distinguishes it from list/create/update/destroy variants. It could be more explicit about the distinction from sibling list tools, but 'single account' provides enough differentiation for a simple CRUD retrieve.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the endpoint for retrieving one account by ID, while siblings like wafeq_accounts_list handle multiple accounts. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the account ID being a Wafeq account ID.

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