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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the explicit behavioral guarantee that it does not enter or change the current context. This is useful context above the annotations and clearly signals a side-effect-free operation.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful non-operation caveat. It does not waste words, though it could name siblings slightly to sharpen routing.

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 read-only list/identity tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema, the description covers the key inputs, the two modes, and the non-mutating behavior. The main missing piece is explicit detail about return shape, but that is not required here given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 the parameters themselves are fully documented. The tool description restates scope behavior but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource pair: identify the authenticated account and its deck/container associations, or list decks within one container. It also explicitly says it does not enter or change context, which distinguishes it from siblings like switch_deck and resolve_container.

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 clearly frames the two use cases: account-level identity and container-level deck listing. It also includes a when-not signal by saying it does not enter or change context, but it does not name alternatives or edge conditions beyond that.

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