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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates exactly what account state is surfaced, including quota consumption and plan-limit comparisons, which is the behavioral detail an agent needs. It doesn't mention caching or freshness, but that is a minor gap against annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the primary subject (which account and role) before the long inventory of limits, then ending with the usage triggers. The enumeration is dense but each item is distinct information; it reads slightly run-on but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing return content, and it does so comprehensively — account identity, role, plan, quota usage, storage, resource counts vs limits, feature flags, and alternate accounts. An agent knows what it will get back and when to reach for it.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly introduces no parameter concepts.

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 connected BootForm account) and enumerates the exact payload: role, plan, submission quota usage, attachment storage, form/workspace/verified-email counts vs limits, included features, and other connectable accounts. That enumeration clearly separates it from inventory siblings like bootform_list_forms and bootform_list_workspaces.

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 explicit trigger conditions: call it before a tool that requires a higher plan, or when the person asks which account they are in. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives/exclusions, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable.

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