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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: 'keys' never returns the key itself, 'revoke_key' needs the prefix, 'delete' is two-step (email confirmation link, deletion on click), 'export' returns everything held, and nothing is charged during the beta. It doesn't cover session lifetime or what happens to data after deletion beyond the click, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sign-in requirement is correctly front-loaded, but the body is a single dense run-on sentence with interleaved parentheticals covering seven actions. An action-per-line structure would be far more scannable; much of the content earns its place, but the packaging works against it.

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 5-parameter, 7-action dispatch tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers prerequisites, per-action effects, and side effects like the deletion email. It is close to complete; only cross-action return expectations (e.g., what 'usage' or 'export' yield structurally) are left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the prose adds genuine meaning: it ties key_prefix to the value action='keys' lists, specifies confirm_email is the account's own email typed back by the user, and explains action='plan' behavior. It is more than restating the schema.

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 the resource (the signed-in account) and enumerates the exact effect of each action ('status' returns email/what is kept/keys, 'plan' explains the free beta, 'keys' lists without exposing the key, 'delete' mails a confirmation link). An agent can tell what each action does. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling whoami, which plausibly overlaps with action='status'.

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?

Explicit prerequisites are given up front: sign in via connect(email) and connect_verify unless already signed in, and it names connect/connect_verify as the alternative path. It also states what happens when not signed in. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over whoami or what to do for account concerns outside this tool's action list.

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