get_account

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It notably warns that the response is returned verbatim and includes plaintext x_password credential fields, which is critical security-sensitive behavior. It doesn't mention other behaviors like permissions required or potential errors, but the key sensitive disclosure is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated in one sentence, followed by concise parameter clarifications and a brief security note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description provides essential information for invocation: parameter formats and a warning about returned credentials. It lacks explicit info about the return structure (though 'returned verbatim' hints at it) and error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the sensitive data disclosure, the coverage is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter (host, site, account_id) is explained with acceptable formats, including the composite ID format for host. This adds significant meaning 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?

Description clearly states 'Get a single RADIUS account by ID', specifying the resource (RADIUS account) and the operation (get by ID). This distinguishes it from list_accounts and other getters for different resources. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_accounts, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage for retrieving a single account when you know its ID, host, and site. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_accounts or get_radius_profile, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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