pex_get_account_remaining_limits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the ID is invalid, or what types of limits are included (daily, monthly, per-transaction).

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?

Single sentence, appropriately front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or wasted words. The length is suitable for a one-parameter read operation.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it should clarify the relationship between the 'Account ID' parameter and the 'cardholder' mentioned in the description, and specify what spending limit categories are returned.

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 100% schema description coverage ('Account ID'), the schema adequately documents the parameter. The description implies the ID refers to a cardholder's account but does not add semantic context about ID format, valid ranges, or where to obtain this identifier.

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 ('Get') and resource ('remaining spending limits') and scopes it to a 'specific cardholder'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'pex_get_card_load_limit_remaining' or clarify whether account-level limits differ from card-level limits.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of siblings like 'pex_get_account_balance', 'pex_get_card_load_limit_remaining', and 'pex_get_spending_ruleset', the description should indicate when this specific endpoint is preferred.

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