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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: account scoping of MCP work, the need to match browser sign-in, and coverage of both account identity and GitHub connection status. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey and is fully consistent with them.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is stated first, followed immediately by concrete usage triggers and a clarifying caveat. Every clause earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it reports, when to use it, and why the account-scoping behavior matters. There are no meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description still clarifies what the tool reports, which is the only semantic context an agent needs, and no param descriptions are required.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report which FindAgent account this AI client is acting as' plus GitHub connection status. This is immediately distinguishable from all 49 sibling tools, none of which provide identity/connection introspection. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to invoke it: 'Use this if a draft you created here is missing when you open it in a browser, or GitHub shows as not connected.' It also explains the underlying reason, that MCP work is scoped to the authorized account, which helps the agent decide in related scenarios.

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