Get an account

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add value. It does by enumerating the returned fields and explaining the hasQrCode flag, which tells the agent what to expect in the response. No side effects or hidden behavior are omitted beyond what annotations already cover.

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 terse sentences with zero filler. The first front-loads the core purpose and return fields; the second clarifies a subtle field and routes to a sibling. 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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists all key return fields and explains hasQrCode. It doesn't mention error cases or pagination, but those are unlikely to be needed for a single-account fetch, and annotations cover safety.

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 single parameter accountId is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with a clear source reference. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema carries the burden, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool returns: one account's status, linked phone number, profile name, proxy location, disconnect reason, last error, and QR-code readiness flag. This clearly distinguishes it from list_accounts (list all) and get_account_qr_code (retrieve QR code), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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 a single-account lookup and explicitly points to get_account_qr_code for retrieving the QR code. It also benefits from the schema's accountId description ('from list_accounts'), which orients the agent on where the ID comes from. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but the context is clear enough.

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