getAccount

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only lookup and previews the response categories, but it does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and adds a scoped list of returned details. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key return fields enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. It is not exhaustive about response structure or edge cases, but the low complexity makes it minimally complete.

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 already describes accountId as a Stellar account ID (G... address) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Stellar account details') and names concrete returned content ('balances, thresholds, and signers'). Within the sibling tool set, the 'account' resource is unique, so the purpose is clearly differentiated from tools like getTransactions or getEffects.

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 explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The usage context is implied by the tool's clear purpose, but the description does not actively guide selection beyond that.

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