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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so 'Reads only' adds nothing. Where the description does earn credit is the follow_up semantics: waiting items arrive paired with an offering question and the concrete read action that lists each one, which tells the agent the tool hands back actionable next steps rather than inert data.

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, no filler, with the returned content front-loaded before the follow_up mechanics. The second sentence is dense but every clause conveys distinct information about how follow_up is shaped.

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 zero-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the agent needs little else. The description covers the content categories and the follow_up interaction pattern; the only shortfall is the absence of any routing guidance against sibling read tools.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion because there is nothing to define.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: account products, unfinished setup tasks, items awaiting the owner's decision, and page links. That is a specific, recognizable read of account status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like xora_read or xora_action_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the alternatives (xora_read, xora_action_status, xora_capabilities). The mention that follow_up items 'this connection can work through in the conversation' hints at a follow-on workflow but never says when the agent should reach for this tool.

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