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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive nature of the tool, so the description does not need to repeat that. The 'by id' phrasing adds a retrieval scope beyond what the title provides, but the description omits behavior like how missing ids are handled or that connectionRef should be reused across calls; those details live in the schema. This gives some context but not a full behavioral picture.

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?

'Gets one BRC bank account by id' is a short, single sentence with no filler and no surplus words. It is front-loaded with the action and the resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it borders on underspecification rather than robust coverage.

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?

The schema fully documents the parameters, including an unusually detailed note about reusing connectionRef, and the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. For a low-complexity getter, this is largely sufficient. However, with no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what the return object looks like, and it relies on the tool name and structural schema to convey that.

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 100%, so all three parameters (id, companyName, connectionRef) are already documented with descriptions. The tool-level description adds no parameter meaning beyond the phrase 'by id', which simply echoes the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Gets'), a distinct resource ('one BRC bank account'), and the retrieval mechanism ('by id'). This distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like brc_list_bank_accounts and mutation tools such as brc_create_bank_account, brc_update_bank_account, and brc_delete_bank_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 the use case—get a single bank account when an id is already known—but it never explicitly names alternatives or contrasts with brc_list_bank_accounts. It also does not state prerequisites such as an established company connection, so usage guidance is inferred rather than fully disclosed.

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