Get an account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — the required API key scope (accounts:read) and the underlying REST endpoint — but says nothing about error behavior for unknown ids or what an account record contains.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, then endpoint — no filler. It is terse rather than padded, though the opening line largely restates the tool name.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the definition supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: auth scope and endpoint. Only the absence of any note on failure modes (e.g., unknown account id) keeps it from a 5.

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 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description's GET /accounts/{id} only confirms it is a path parameter. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get an account') and pins it to the endpoint GET /accounts/{id}, making clear it retrieves a single account by identifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_accounts or get_accounts_proxy_health, but the singular-resource framing plus the path template is enough to 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over list_accounts when you already have an id, or over get_accounts_proxy_health when checking proxy status. The required scope hint implies permissions but gives no selection criteria among alternatives.

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