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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context by stating that no secrets or payment data are returned, which clarifies the read behavior and privacy boundary. However, it does not describe output structure or other behavioral details, so it only moderately adds beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element—address, plan, and the exclusion of sensitive payment data—contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool confirms and what it does not expose. The only minor gap is the ambiguity between 'destination account' and 'connected account,' which could be clearer for agent routing.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description avoids inventing unnecessary parameter-related information and focuses on what the tool 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?

The description states a clear purpose: confirming the address and plan of the destination account. The verb 'confirms' is specific and the resource scope (account details) is identifiable. While 'destination account' is slightly ambiguous compared to the title's 'connected account,' it is still distinct enough from the many sibling tools.

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?

The description implies usage for verifying account-level information like address and plan, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Since there are no obvious sibling account-checking tools, the implied context is sufficient but not clearly articulated.

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