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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the description adds genuine extra context: call cost ('cheap enough to poll every few seconds') and a stop condition tied to user-blocking states. It does not describe return payload shape or any rate limits, but the polling cadence and terminal-state semantics are the useful additions.

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 compact sentences with the purpose and polling loop front-loaded, followed by an example. The example is largely redundant given the required single UUID parameter, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the polling lifecycle and the notable state values well. It stops just short of clarifying how callers should interpret 'ready' versus other non-terminal states, but nothing critical for invocation 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account_id (UUID from list_accounts, not MT5 login) and response_format's concise/detailed enum; baseline 3 applies. The description's example only restates account_id and adds no new parameter semantics such as what 'concise' actually returns.

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 and result ('Just an account's state') and frames itself as the cheap polling variant, which implicitly distinguishes it from heavier siblings like get_account and get_account_overview. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance (poll every few seconds after bring_accounts_online until `ready`) and when-to-stop guidance (terminal states invalid_credentials, needs_2fa, needs_certificate, trading_disabled need the user). No sibling alternative is named, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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