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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'The key is never returned' (a privacy guarantee), 'integration is null until it has been connected' (empty-state semantics), and the meaning of the error status (ElevenLabs refused the key three times, so calls stopped importing). That is exactly the value-add descriptions should carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence (status meanings, null state, key redaction, UI boundary) carries information. The opening sentence is long and stacks many return fields, but nothing is wasted.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it enumerates the fields, explains the status enum, and states the null case. Combined with full schema coverage on the one optional parameter and complete annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% for the single optional 'fields' array with enumerated values, so the schema fully documents it. The description never mentions the 'fields' projection parameter and adds no syntax or default guidance beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and a precisely scoped resource ('whether the account has connected its own ElevenLabs workspace') and enumerates exactly what is returned: status, region, key suffix, last error, last import time. This clearly separates it from sibling tools such as list_elevenlabs_agents (which lists agents) and get_details_of_all_integrations (which covers all integrations).

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 final sentence — 'Connecting, changing the key and disconnecting happen in Settings -> Integrations -> ElevenLabs' — explicitly tells the agent what this tool cannot do and where the write actions live, which is a real usage boundary. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for broader integration reads, so it is not a full 5.

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