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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is 'static instructions only,' returns no account data, and that 'the agent cannot create the credential itself,' which prevents false expectations about side effects or data access.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place: what it returns, when to call it, and its limitations. There is no redundant filler or restating of the tool name.

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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns, under what conditions to invoke it, and what it will not do, which is sufficient for correct selection and 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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining what kind of content is returned, which is more meaningful than parameter details would be for an empty-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns how') and a clear resource: how a Hu-manity customer connects their real account so account.* tools become available. It also distinguishes its scope from general help tools by naming the two routes it covers and the exact condition tied to account.* availability.

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 says 'Call this when a customer wants to manage their real banner and the account.* tools are not available,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name sibling alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the condition is specific enough that an agent can route correctly.

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