Get account

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description confirms 'Read-only,' so there is no contradiction. The description adds the specific property list and the connectivity-check use case, but it does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as output structure, pagination, or failure modes. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the operation and resource, and is generally economical. The final 'Read-only.' is somewhat redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it is short and harmless.

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 read-only operation with one optional, fully documented parameter and no required parameters, the description is adequate. It lists the kind of data returned (number, name, items in inventory, owner), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. No auth or error details are necessary for a low-risk read operation.

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 optional parameter 'account' is fully described in the input schema with aliases, the list_accounts reference, and the default behavior of using the active account. Schema coverage is 100%, so the tool description does not need to restate this; it adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('FastBound account properties and settings'), with concrete examples like number, name, items in inventory, and owner. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as list_accounts or use_account, but the get-vs-list distinction is reasonably clear.

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 says it is 'useful as a connectivity/credential check,' which gives a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_accounts or use_account, nor does it state when not to use it. The schema parameter references list_accounts, but the description itself provides no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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