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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes further by disclosing the integration state semantics: Slack delivery requires connection, and webhook IDs must reference listed values. It also mentions the signup-link behavior for non-account holders, adding behavioral context beyond the static annotations.

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 concise: three sentences, each with a distinct purpose. The first sentence front-loads the primary function, the second gives actionable integration guidance, and the third covers support usage and free-account signup. No word is wasted, and the structure is logically ordered.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and their practical relevance, making the tool's behavior fully understandable. It also connects the tool to sibling tools (alerts) and external use cases (support), covering all necessary context for a zero-parameter getter.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by thoroughly documenting what fields the response contains (org ID, name, user ID, email, role, plan, status, integrations) and how to use those fields (e.g., checking integrations before alert configuration, quoting organizationId for support). This adds meaningful semantic value even without parameters.

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 states 'Get your Prowlo account details' and enumerates specific fields (organization ID, user ID, email, role, plan, account status, integration state). This is a specific verb+resource construction that effectively distinguishes the tool from all sibling tools, which target alerts, records, social data, etc.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: check `integrations` before setting an Alert destination, and quote `organizationId` when contacting support. It also implicitly explains how to interpret the returned integration fields in relation to alert tools (slack/webhook dependencies), making the usage context highly actionable.

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