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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real context on top: auth requirement (Bearer bb_... header or api_key), the failure mode without a key, and the shape/semantics of open_obligations including report_token and pending/overdue status that feeds report_result. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then usage, then auth, so the agent gets the important parts first. The field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place; the only cost is a slightly run-on sentence structure.

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 burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including nested open_obligations contents and status values. Combined with the auth and error behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the Authorization header or api_key restates what the schema already documents rather than adding new meaning, so no uplift is warranted.

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 ('Show') and resource ('your own bot account') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: handle, email, signature, verified flag, reliability counts, and open_obligations. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_recipe or report_result, which operate on recipes rather than the caller's own profile.

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 concrete use cases: verifying the API key works, checking verification status, and seeing outstanding obligations. It also routes the agent to register_bot via the error path. It stops short of explicit 'when not to use' guidance or naming alternatives for the obligation workflow (e.g. report_result), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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