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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only 'Page with offset' as new behavior, which is thin but accurate; no mention of result limits, ordering, or what happens on an empty page.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the purpose, the operating instruction, and the pagination note each earn their 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully connects the returned ID to subsequent actions. It is complete enough for a simple read-only list tool, with only minor gaps around pagination bounds.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by stating 'Page with offset', revealing that offset drives pagination. It omits the default (0), the upper bound (100000), and any page-size semantics, leaving the schema's bare integer under-explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the user's saved customer accounts'), which clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like create_account and record_* tools. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, but the read/retrieve intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear triggering context ('before answering or editing') and a strong directive ('Use the returned ID; do not guess an account') that tells the agent how to act on the result. It stops short of naming alternative tools for lookup, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete.

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