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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring a safe read, the description still adds real behavioral value: sequences are returned with ids and 'in the format save_sequence takes', signaling round-trip compatibility between read and write. It does not cover ordering guarantees for the other collections or failure behavior for an invalid sequence_id.

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, no filler. The listing scope comes first, then the optional-parameter behavior, which is exactly the order an agent needs to decide how to call it.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates what comes back (tags, ordered stages, custom fields, sequences with ids, sequence settings and steps) and flags the save_sequence-compatible format. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining the dual semantics of sequence_id (single-sequence detail vs. full setup listing) and tying the returned shape to save_sequence's expected input.

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 ('List') plus the exact resources returned: lead tags, pipeline stages in order, custom fields, and follow-up sequences with their ids. An agent can tell this is the account-config read tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the mutation siblings (manage_tags, manage_stages, save_sequence), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Documents both operating modes clearly: omit sequence_id to list account setup, or pass it to read a single sequence's settings and steps. It gives no explicit 'use X instead' routing to siblings that mutate the same resources, but the read vs. write boundary is inferable from the schema.

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