wafeq_bank_accounts_retrieve

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally; the description's READ-ONLY label merely restates readOnlyHint=true. It does add the HTTP method and endpoint path (GET /bank-accounts/{id}/), which is mildly useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists between description and 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the read-only marker, resource label, and endpoint on the first line. However, 'Retrieve bank account' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single bank account' are redundant restatements of the same idea, so not every sentence earns its place. The title annotation repeats 'Retrieve bank account' as well.

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 one-parameter read-only retrieve with five rich annotations, the description identifies the resource and endpoint adequately. However, with no output schema, the description does not hint at what the response contains, and with 0% schema coverage the id semantics remain thin. Adequate for a simple tool, but with clear gaps.

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% — the single id parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden. It only reveals that id is a URL path parameter via 'GET /bank-accounts/{id}/', adding minimal meaning. It does not compensate for the coverage gap: no indication of id format (numeric vs UUID), how to obtain it, or any constraints.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve bank account' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single bank account.' The qualifier 'single' distinguishes it from the list operation, though it never explicitly names sibling alternatives like wafeq_bank_accounts_list. Clear and specific, just lacking explicit sibling differentiation.

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 rather than stated — 'retrieving a single bank account' combined with the {id} path parameter signals this is a by-ID lookup, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus wafeq_bank_accounts_list or its sibling retrieve operations. No alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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