Get Account

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's main addition is the field-level return shape and the fact that formatted_account is masked. That is useful context, but because a full output schema exists, restating the fields is largely redundant and no error/not-found behavior is disclosed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the purpose first and the return shape second; nothing is padded. The field enumeration verges on duplicating the output schema, costing a little weight.

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 annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. It is thin on routing versus the balance and pending-transaction siblings, which is the main remaining 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the account_id description already gives the Akahu format with an example. The description adds only 'by id', which is the baseline expectation rather than new meaning, so the standard 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single account by id'), which cleanly separates it from acct_list_accounts by cardinality. It does not explicitly name the sibling it displaces, but the singular-vs-list distinction is clear enough from the wording.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'single account by id' phrasing; there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer acct_get_account_balance (balance-only) or acct_get_pending_transactions, nor any note on what happens with an unknown id. The agent must infer the routing from sibling names alone.

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