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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — results are commonly plural, one or more per channel — but says nothing about pagination, result shape, or what an 'account' record contains.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The multiplicity caveat is front-loaded before the sequencing instruction, which is the right order for the reader.

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 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the surface area needing explanation is small, and the description covers purpose and call ordering. It could say a bit more about what identifying fields an account record has, since there's no output schema to fall back on.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The note about multiple accounts per channel adds expectation-setting that the empty schema cannot convey.

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 ('List every account the user has connected to Goptin') and clarifies cardinality ('several per channel is normal'). No sibling tool (get_ticket, list_conversations, send_message, etc.) does this, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

'Call this first to pick the right account' gives explicit ordering guidance that ties it to the rest of the workflow. It stops short of naming which sibling to use next or any exclusions, but the when-to-use signal is unambiguous.

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