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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well-established. The description adds that credential fields are removed, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond annotations. It doesn't describe whether the response is paginated or if there are delays due to authentication, but given the zero-parameter scope, this is adequate.

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 short sentences, front-loading the primary action ('Read this authenticated merchant account') before adding the credential stripping detail. Every word is essential, and there's no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness for a simple read operation.

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 zero-parameter input, the annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return structure), the description covers the essential context: what is being read, its scope, and a key data transformation (removal of credentials). It could mention that the output is a single object or reference authentication requirements, but the existing coverage is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema has 100% coverage (no parameters to cover), and the description correctly adds context by stating the resource type and the credential stripping behavior. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool where the description goes slightly beyond the bare minimum.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('read') and resource ('merchant account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like auraspay_account_balance or auraspay_dashboard_stats. It clarifies scope (authenticated account) and notes that credential fields are removed, which adds useful semantic detail beyond the name.

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 implies this is the tool to fetch the merchant's own account details, setting it apart from balance, settings, and status tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over auraspay_account_balance or auraspay_merchant_setup_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites like authentication requirements. The usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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