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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a consent condition ('when your human asks') but does not disclose the consequence of removal — e.g. whether the agent loses the ability to act on that service or must re-prove via prove_account.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

For a destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description omits what the removal costs the agent, how it relates to prove_account/get_line, and what 'service' means. Annotations cover the safety flags but not the operational consequences.

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 coverage is only 50%: the secret param is documented in the schema, but the required 'service' enum (github/x) has no description of what it selects. The description never references service or secret, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on the one required parameter.

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 phrase 'Take an account proof off your line' names a clear verb (remove/take off) and resource (account proof), scoped to the agent's own line. It is distinguishable from siblings like remove_name by the noun, but never names its inverse sibling prove_account, so the pairing is only inferable.

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?

'When your human asks' gives a consent trigger, which is genuine usage context, but there is no statement of prerequisites (must a proof exist first?), no mention of prove_account as the counterpart, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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