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

The description describes a pure read/retrieval action ('Return the account's ...'), but the annotations set destructiveHint=true, which directly contradicts that read-only nature. This is a serious inconsistency that could lead an agent to believe calling it has destructive side effects.

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 two short sentences; the first front-loads the purpose and contents, and the second adds a useful clarifying detail about owned-link count limits. No words are wasted.

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 status tool, the description covers the main response categories but no output schema is provided, so the exact response shape is unverified. The contradictory destructiveHint in annotations also slightly undermines completeness, though the description itself is clear.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema and no required fields, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies because parameter semantics are moot.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Return' and enumerates exactly what is provided: the account's plan, entitlement, live tunnels, owned links, and usage metrics. This clearly positions it as the read-only status tool among siblings like revoke_link and unprotect_link, which are mutation actions.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer that this is the generic account overview. Even though the 0-parameter signature makes it trivially callable, there is no statement distinguishing it from sibling tools like links or serve for account-related queries.

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