get_account_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so: declares read-only, states it exposes no secrets, and excludes order-flow control. The windowMs unit disclosure is a genuine behavioral detail an agent couldn't get elsewhere; only return-shape details are left implicit.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the safety qualifier. The phrase "the fields set_limit takes" is slightly awkward but earns its place by anchoring the output shape.

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?

An output schema and a fully-described single parameter mean the description needn't explain return values, and it still adds the read-only scope and unit semantics. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 sole parameter "account" is already documented as an account code. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Return account row and its account-scoped risk barriers") and clarifies the payload shape relative to set_limit. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_limits, so an agent comparing the two must still infer the difference.

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 only implied: the tie to set_limit suggests this is the read-before-write path, and "no order-flow control" hints at what it can't do. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or contrast with get_limits.

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