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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the closing 'Read only.' sentence merely restates structured data and earns no credit. The genuinely additive behavior detail is the disclosure that the response includes connection liveness, which hints that a stale/disconnected integration is a possible state an agent must handle. No auth or rate-limit context is given, which is acceptable at this lower bar.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the use case and the safety profile. No filler, no redundancy beyond the one short 'Read only.' restatement.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full annotation set and an output schema, the description covers the returned fields, the practical use case, and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single organisationId parameter, the schema already explains that the ID comes from list_organisations. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the organisation') and enumerates exactly what comes back: name, connected accounting system (Xero or QuickBooks Online), and connection liveness. That field list implicitly separates it from get_organisation_summary and list_organisations, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Use it to confirm which business the data belongs to' gives a concrete usage context, which is more than most read tools offer. It does not state when to prefer get_organisation_summary or list_organisations instead, and offers no exclusions, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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