lemma_get_bank_account

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields and confirming it is a single-account read, but it does not mention error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether balances are current.

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 a single efficient sentence with the operation, scope, and key returned data front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and the main return data. It does not explicitly state the role of account_id or describe not-found behavior, but the tool's simplicity makes the definition mostly complete.

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% and the description does not explain the account_id parameter at all. The meaning is inferable from the tool name, but the description adds no explicit semantics about what identifies the bank account or how to obtain the ID.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get one bank account', and lists the returned fields (name, account/routing number, balances). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like lemma_list_bank_accounts and lemma_get_external_account.

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-record fetch by ID rather than a list operation, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool over lemma_list_bank_accounts or other getters. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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