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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation by using 'Report,' and describes what it returns (account, permissions, quota). However, it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any potential failure modes (e.g., invalid credential). Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit about non-mutation.

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 concise, using two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and output, and the second provides the usage directive. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it reports and when to call it. It could be improved by mentioning the response format (e.g., JSON, text), but given the tool's simplicity and the guidance to call it first, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information to supplement. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameters. It doesn't need to add parameter-specific details because there are none.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it reports the account associated with the credential, its permissions, and quota. The verb 'Report' is specific, and the resource is 'WorkforceGPT account' with explicit details. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_role or check_role_status, which focus on roles rather than account-level status.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Call this first' and explains the purpose: 'it is how you find out whether a generation will be accepted before you build one.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a rationale, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives. The 'call first' directive effectively positions it as a prerequisite check.

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