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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context by confirming no data is changed and that only admin accounts can use it, though it does not detail rate limits or the exact form of the impact output.

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?

Three short sentences with the use case front-loaded and no wasted wording. Each sentence adds a distinct constraint or clarification.

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 one-parameter preview tool with rich read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, the safety property, and the admin restriction. It could say more about what the impact preview returns, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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%, and the single body parameter is already described as an account command to preview without execution. The description adds no additional syntax, shape, or example details for the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (preview), resource (account-management command), and explicitly says it describes impact without changing data. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_account_management_snapshot, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: when an admin asks what an account-management change would do. It also restricts usage to admin accounts, but does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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