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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond them: what the call returns and the notable side effect that an unconnected caller is shown a Connect button that can create an account. That sign-up flow sits awkwardly beside the readOnly hint, but the tool call itself does not mutate state, so this is disclosure rather than contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the report's contents before the routing instruction, and no sentence is pure filler. The all-caps 'ALSO THE WAY TO SIGN SOMEONE UP OR IN FROM CLAUDE' clause is disproportionately loud and lengthens the tail, costing a little polish.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (account type, directory listing, GBP status, allowed actions), and it supplies the prerequisite ordering an agent needs. The one missing piece is disambiguation from 'which_shearquery_account', which an agent in this 50+ sibling set would plausibly reach for instead.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no parameter semantics to document beyond what the empty schema already conveys. No misuse risk arises from the argument surface.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report who this ShearQuery connection is signed in as' and enumerates the four reported fields (account type, directory listing, GBP connection status, permissions). This clearly separates it from the many my_* data tools. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling 'which_shearquery_account', leaving an obvious ambiguity unresolved.

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 explicit ordering guidance ('Call this first before any other my_* or propose_* tool') and states the condition that triggers the sign-up path (if they aren't connected yet). It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this over 'which_shearquery_account', so a clear alternative-selection gap remains.

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