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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the 404 meaning covers both ownership and disconnected-account cases, and the ambiguity rule prevents the agent from silently choosing an account.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by the alternative, error meaning, and ambiguity handling. Every sentence contributes distinct operational guidance, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety traits, and an output schema, so return-format details are unnecessary. The description covers selection criteria, alternatives, failure interpretation, and disambiguation policy, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already says it is a numeric Tailwind account ID returned by list_accounts. The tool description reinforces the provenance and adds failure semantics tied to that ID, so it provides modest value beyond the schema without being the primary parameter documentation.

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 ('get_account') and names the exact details returned: username, display name, connection status, time zone, and claimed domain. It also explicitly distinguishes this from listing every account, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like list_accounts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you already have an accountId') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Prefer list_accounts when you do not have an accountId yet'). It additionally handles the ambiguity case by instructing the agent to ask the user rather than guessing when multiple accounts exist.

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