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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds what annotations cannot: a sign-in requirement and a prereq of a connected Fold account. It also discloses the sensitivity of the payload (gate codes, access notes, card-on-file status, credit balance) and cross-references that book_my_pickup consumes these saved details.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the gating condition, then the no-auth alternatives, then the return contents. The long enumeration in sentence three is dense but every item is a distinct field an agent may need to reason about, so 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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so explicitly, while also covering auth prerequisites and downstream tool relationships. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it 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 no parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on input syntax and instead describes what comes back.

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 (retrieving the caller's own Fold account) and enumerates exactly what that account record contains — addresses, card on file, credit balance, membership, care preferences, recurring pickups. It also explicitly separates itself from guest/no-auth siblings (get_pricing, check_service_zip, get_estimate, book_residential_pickup), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Leads with an explicit gate — 'Only call this when the customer asks about their own Fold account, saved details or orders' — and names the sibling alternatives for the cases that do NOT require it. This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use / alternative mapping rather than an implied one.

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