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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses an auth requirement (signed-in session) and a persistent side effect (records the version and time on the account). It omits whether re-acceptance is idempotent or what happens on a version mismatch, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences with zero waste; the auth precondition is front-loaded before the effect and the parameter source. Every clause earns its place.

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, 100%-covered tool with no output schema, the description supplies the needed auth context and side-effect disclosure. Minor gaps remain around idempotency and error behavior on invalid versions, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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% and the sole parameter's meaning and maxLength are documented in the schema. The description only repeats the 'version from account.me termsVersion' pointer, adding no syntax or semantics beyond structured data, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb ('accept') and the exact resources affected (Terms of Service, Data Processing Addendum, Privacy Notice), and the account_acceptTerms scope is clearly distinct from siblings like account_me or account_login. An agent can identify what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('Signed-in session only') and routes the agent to account.me for the correct termsVersion value. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or what to do if a version is already accepted, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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