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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it lists the returned fields and explains the automatic single-account behavior versus the multi-account targeting requirement.

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 three front-loaded sentences with little waste. The final sentence about account_id is useful but slightly ambiguous because it refers to a parameter that this tool does not accept.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return values and explains account-selection behavior. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read tool, with only minor ambiguity around the account_id reference.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description mentions account_id for targeting when multiple accounts exist, but because account_id is not a parameter of this tool, that reference is slightly ambiguous rather than schema-documenting.

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 and resource: it lists accounts available to this connection and names the returned fields (IDs, names, slugs, roles, user profile). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic raq_* sibling tools.

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 clear usage context: a single available account is used automatically, while multiple accounts require passing account_id to target one. It does not describe when not to use this tool or name an alternative, but the selection guidance is explicit.

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