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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful context by stating that authentication is required and specifying exactly what account data is exposed, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 description is a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes the key usage constraint ('Requires authentication') without any redundant filler.

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 simple read-only profile getter with one optional parameter fully described in the schema, the description provides enough context: the resource, the fields included, and the authentication requirement. No output schema exists, but the listed fields give a clear expectation of return contents.

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% for the only parameter, sessionKey, so the schema already documents it fully. The tool description does not add any new parameter-specific details, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the verb (Get), the resource (authenticated user's profile and account information), and the scope (name, email, organization, balance, domain/VPS counts). This detail differentiates it from siblings like getAccountBalance and getAccountSummary without ambiguity.

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 clearly states the authentication requirement and that this targets the authenticated user's own data, providing useful context. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling like getAccountBalance, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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