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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance the annotations lack: it returns only *directly* accessible customers, not manager-nested ones, which affects result interpretation. Return shape is left to the output schema.

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 short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. The trailing 'Tools revision' line is scaffolding noise that adds nothing for tool selection.

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?

A simple zero-arg read tool with full annotations and an existing output schema needs little prose; the definition covers scope and the sibling alternative. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though auth-scope nuances (manager accounts) are only lightly implied.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 applies since the description has no parameter semantics to add.

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 ('Returns ids of customers directly accessible') with the key scope qualifier 'directly accessible by the user authenticating the call.' It also names the sibling (get_org_context) that serves the adjacent need, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_org_context when connected accounts plus business profile and next steps are wanted, implying this tool is the bare-ID lookup. No explicit 'when not to use' beyond that single alternative, and it doesn't mention account-hierarchy edge cases.

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