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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the account is agency-scoped, sample clients exist and are labeled, and gaps in the data are surfaced rather than hidden. No auth or rate-limit details, but none are needed for a read-only detail fetch.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the account scope before enumerating contents, with zero filler. It is dense and list-like, but every clause names a distinct returned field or action, 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 and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the response and does so by enumerating the returned data categories, including the unexpected sample clients. It also closes the loop to update_my_agency_details, leaving no major gap for a read-only zero-arg tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so schema semantics are not at issue and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that no input is required by scoping everything to 'an AGENCY account' implicitly derived from the caller's identity.

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 the resource (an agency account) and enumerates what it returns: details, partner approval status, referral link/code, credited businesses and their setup stage, sample clients, and sent invites. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling my_shearquery_account and pairs it with update_my_agency_details. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Tells the agent what to do with the result: missing details are listed so you can ask the user and persist them via update_my_agency_details, naming the sibling tool. It does not state when to prefer this over my_shearquery_account, which is the one plausible alternative for account lookups.

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