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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the output covers three specific content dimensions and carries an operative instruction to repeat availability status with each feature and never present an in-testing feature as available, which materially shapes how an agent should relay results.

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 front-loaded paragraph that leads with what the tool returns and ends with usage guidance and the status-repetition rule. Dense but every clause carries a distinct fact; the enumerated account types slightly duplicate the enum.

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, the description does the work of describing the return content (website, Claude capabilities, availability status) and an important presentation constraint. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only reference lookup, though it does not clarify the shape of the response per account type.

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 description coverage is 100% and the enum is fully specified, so the parameter is already well-documented. The description lists the same account types and notes 'per account type' but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 scope: what a ShearQuery account gets per account type, covering website presence, in-Claude capabilities, and feature availability status. An agent can distinguish this reference/lookup tool from siblings like which_shearquery_account or set_my_account_type without opening any schema.

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 clear trigger scenarios: 'Use it when an agency is pitching ShearQuery to a business, or when anyone asks what an account does.' This is a strong positive usage signal, but it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition (e.g., distinguishing it from which_shearquery_account), so it stops short of a full 5.

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