get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the parameter 'exclude_fields' in depth, including default behavior and the ability to customize via FIELDS.md. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., account not found), rate limits, or authentication requirements. Overall, the transparency is good for a simple retrieval tool.

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 concise at two sentences plus an args block. It front-loads the core purpose. The structure is clean, though the args section could be integrated as a single paragraph. No wordiness, and every sentence provides value.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It explains the parameters and references external documentation for default fields. However, it fails to describe error cases (e.g., invalid ID), response structure (beyond output schema), or any side effects. For a retrieval tool with moderate complexity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. For plan_id and account_id, it adds basic context (e.g., 'use list_plans to find available IDs' for plan_id). For exclude_fields, it provides detailed semantics regarding default, empty array, and custom override. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get details for a specific account,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts (which lists all accounts) by emphasizing 'specific account.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like get_plan or get_transaction, but the resource name and required account_id make its purpose clear.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_accounts or get_plan. There is no mention of prerequisites, contextual triggers, or when this tool should be avoided. The only reference is to use list_plans to find plan IDs, which is helpful but narrow.

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