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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the return is markdown suitable for forwarding verbatim, and it explicitly excludes passwords and keys, which is a meaningful disclosure about what the payload will not contain.

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, densely packed with content but zero filler. The audience and purpose come first, the return-format/practical instruction second, and the secrets exclusion closes it out.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly (markdown, per-domain live status, mailboxes, webmail link, mail-app settings, outstanding tasks). Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or how to present the result is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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+resource ('plain-language summary of the email setup') and enumerates the exact contents: domains and live status, mailboxes, webmail link, IMAP/SMTP settings, and remaining tasks. The framing 'written for the human you are working for' implicitly separates it from the machine-oriented sibling get_account_summary.

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 a concrete usage context: 'Returns markdown to show or send to them as-is when you finish setting something up.' It does not explicitly name get_account_summary as the alternative for a technical/account-level view, so the when-not guidance is absent.

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