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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value by specifying what the payload contains and how it differs between the hosted server (plan) and the local CLI server (key type, proxy URL, providers). It stops short of saying whether the call makes network requests or what it returns when unconfigured, which is the only remaining behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded sentences: the capability first, then the parenthetical scope of returned fields, then a labeled usage line. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not the description's job, and annotations fully cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the distinction between hosted and local server reporting.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is unambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource: show whether PromptGuard is set up and signed in, plus version and account/configuration details. The resource is categorically distinct from the sibling scan/redact tools, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

It has an explicit 'When to use' clause naming two concrete situations: verifying configuration and confirming the running version. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives, but no sibling overlaps with status checking, so the guidance is effectively sufficient.

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