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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the conditional no-data behavior for non-business logins, which an agent needs in order to interpret an empty response, though it says nothing about auth/permission failure modes.

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, zero preamble, with the eligibility constraint front-loaded before the payload enumeration. The second sentence is a long comma-heavy list but every element is a distinct returned field, so the length is earned.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so field by field, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read-only summary tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a fully implicit, account-scoped call with nothing to configure.

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 resource (the connected Fold business account) and enumerates the exact contents it summarizes: deliveries, statement totals, payments, balance, due date, invoice link, scheduled days. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names the sibling it is distinguished from, so an agent must infer the split against get_my_account.

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 precondition and eligibility rule: the connected account must belong to a Fold business (B2B) login such as a hotel, office, or property-management company, and data is returned only in that case. It stops short of the explicit alternative ('use get_my_account for personal accounts'), so routing is implied rather than directed.

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