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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further, disclosing edge-case behavior: returning `null` when the account has no page, the meaning of `identityChosen: false`, and the shape of the `onboarding` entries — genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Every clause describes a returned field, so little is wasted, and the size is defensible given there is no output schema. However, it is delivered as a single dense run-on sentence with nested parentheses and semicolons, which hurts parseability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly, covering plan, limits, intervals, status page and onboarding. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the definition is close to complete for a no-parameter read tool.

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, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 ('Mostra') and resource (the account), and enumerates the concrete data returned — plan, monitor ceiling, check intervals, status page, onboarding. It is distinguishable from the monitor/channel/occurrence siblings, but it never explicitly names what it is NOT, so it falls short of true sibling differentiation.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; usage is only implied by the fact that this is the sole account-level tool. An agent can infer it should call this to inspect account state, but nothing in the text frames that context or points to an alternative.

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