get_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the account argument accepts a substring/name lookup, and contacts are included by default via include_contacts=True. It does not address ambiguity handling or error behavior on lookup misses.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the Args block adds necessary parameter detail without filler. Every sentence earns its place, especially given the empty schema descriptions.

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 exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both parameters are well covered. The main remaining gap is guidance on what happens if the name/substring lookup is ambiguous or matches multiple accounts, which matters for this lookup mode.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains the account identifier format with concrete examples and clarifies that include_contacts is optional and defaults to True. Both parameters are fully documented beyond the bare schema types.

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 (get) and resource (single account) plus scope (full details including contacts). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_accounts and search_accounts, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by 'single account' and the identifier/substring lookup, which suggests detail retrieval rather than browsing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like search_accounts or list_accounts.

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