Get account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Fetches', which aligns with annotations but does not introduce new traits like return format or error behavior. No contradiction, but no additional transparency either.

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?

A single sentence that is efficient and to the point. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the example is placed at the end without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what is fetched and gives an example. It doesn't describe the response format, but that is not critical given the simplicity, and no output schema exists to rely on. Slight gap in not mentioning what the response contains, but acceptable.

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 schema description for the parameter is minimal ('Path parameter account'), providing little semantic meaning. The tool description compensates by clarifying that the account is identified by a number (e.g. 1930), adding format context that the schema lacks. This exceeds the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetches'), a specific resource ('one account'), and a clear identifier ('by its number'). It also gives an example (1930) that clarifies the format. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list tool.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a single account by its number. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to the list alternative, but the naming and phrasing make the conditional clear enough. The example adds practical guidance.

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