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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds that the account info is stable, which reinforces idempotence, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if no account is connected. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second adds the narrow use case. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description need not detail return values. It does, however, explain the meaning of the returned data, which is helpful. The only minor gap is lack of guidance on error or edge cases (e.g., what happens if no account is connected), but that is beyond the scope of typical tool descriptions.

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 no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what is returned rather than on inputs, which are nonexistent.

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 resource (the NudgeLink account this connection signs in as) and enumerates exactly what it returns (stable id, company name, sign-in email). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like draft_message, get_inbox, and list_* tools, which operate on messages, campaigns, and leads.

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 provides clear context for use: 'Used to tell connected accounts apart.' This gives a motivating scenario, but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools. There are no obvious alternatives among the siblings for this capability, so the absence of exclusions is less critical.

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