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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns authenticated identity, organizations, and missing fields, and explicitly states it does not expose credentials. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, with the first sentence front-loaded with critical qualifiers (AUTH REQUIRED; READ-ONLY). Every phrase adds value, and it is appropriately compact for a no-argument tool.

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?

Given there is an output schema and no parameters, the description sufficiently explains the return values (identity, organizations, missing fields) and safety behavior (no credential exposure). It is complete for the tool's scope and complexity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters; the schema already specifies 'No arguments' and the description repeats that. Per the rubric, zero params gets a baseline of 4, as there is no parameter complexity to elaborate on.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Verifies the current public MCP OAuth identity and account readiness.' It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like account_setup by focusing on status verification rather than setup.

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 usage for checking account readiness before other operations but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. It mentions AUTH REQUIRED and READ-ONLY, which gives some context, but lacks direct guidance on choosing this over account_setup or other tools.

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