Get sub-account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds a genuinely useful disclosure beyond them: credentials are redacted, so the agent knows the response will not contain secrets and must not be relied on for auth material. It still omits what happens when the ID does not exist or is not accessible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, then the redaction caveat, then the read-only note. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields (name, contact, status, KYC mode, rate limit, permissions, timestamps) plus the redaction behavior, which covers the return contract the schema omits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents the SA_... pattern and even points to list_sub_accounts as the source. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or provenance, so the baseline 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 ('Return one Vobiz sub-account's details') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly distinguishes itself from list_sub_accounts via 'one', but never names the sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 the natural use case (fetch a single sub-account's details) and the schema points at list_sub_accounts as the source of the ID, which implies a list-then-get flow. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. get_sub_account_kyc_status for KYC detail).

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