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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description is not the primary source of safety info. It nonetheless adds genuinely new context: cost is free and not counted against tasks, and it warns the agent not to attempt platform tools when nothing is connected. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the classification header ('READ-ONLY... free'), then purpose, then the 'When not to use' block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant padding.

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?

With no output schema present, the description steps in to describe the return contents (platforms, accounts, primary account, remaining tasks, example prompts with cost), and it covers the failure mode of no connections. Nothing material is missing for a zero-required-parameter bootstrap tool.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (raw_data) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or format. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the real state of this user's Adako account') and enumerates the concrete payload: connected platforms, active/primary accounts, remaining tasks, and example prompts with cost. Adjacent siblings like get_connections_status and list_connected_accounts are implicitly differentiated by the broader account-state scope plus the 'call first' framing.

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?

Explicitly states when to call ('first in a new conversation, or whenever you are unsure what the user can do'), when not to ('you already know the connection state from an earlier call'), and the fallback action when nothing is connected. Both inclusion and exclusion conditions are spelled out.

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