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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds genuine behavioral context: that actions_details is mandatory before any real query, and that available_actions is subsumed by the accounts response, which prevents a redundant call. It doesn't cover failure modes (e.g. what happens if actions_details is skipped or an unknown action id is passed), keeping it below a 5.

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 step-numbered, front-loaded layout with bold-equivalent step labels makes the ordering scannable and every line carries procedural value. The only slack is the 'available_actions' optional entry, which partly repeats the earlier claim that it is already in the accounts response.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers the call sequence for a five-parameter tool. The unmentioned 'platform' parameter is the one remaining gap an agent might trip over.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning — and it does explain the request enum values (accounts, actions_details, available_actions, brands) and how actions, brand_id and workspace_id are used. However, the 'platform' parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 names a specific role — a setup/discovery helper that returns workspace_id, brand_id, gcp_project_id, source metadata and the list of callable read-only actions — rather than merely restating the generic name 'query_contexts'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (query_data, execute_action) by positioning itself as the prerequisite planning step.

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?

It gives an explicit ordered workflow: Step 1 request='accounts', Step 2 request='actions_details' marked REQUIRED before querying, plus two clearly labeled Optional calls. It names which inputs to carry forward (actions from available_actions, brand_id + workspace_id for brands), leaving nothing about when-to-use to inference.

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