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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: authentication is required ('Needs the customer's 4OVER4 sign-in') and the section parameter has a default. The return-value sentence is largely redundant with the output schema, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Purpose, routing alternatives, auth requirement, and default are all front-loaded in the first two sentences. The trailing customer-phrase list is slightly list-like but earns its space as a matching aid; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 single optional enum parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich read-only annotations mean little is left unstated. The description covers who can call it, what it returns per section, and how it differs from siblings — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum values are already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining what each section yields in practice (profile fields, 'every saved address', saved QR codes) and by restating that the parameter is optional with a profile default.

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 ('Shows the signed-in customer's 4OVER4 account') and enumerates the three data sections it can return. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, get_my_orders and get_my_coins, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use it when someone asks about their own 4OVER4 account details') plus named alternatives with their own conditions ('For orders use get_my_orders; for coins use get_my_coins'). The customer-phrase list adds concrete routing signals rather than leaving matching to inference.

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