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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals what the tool returns (email, plan, existing holdings) and what it does not (plan limits), effectively implying a read-only identity operation. It doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, but that's implied by the context.

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 packs useful information but is somewhat wordy, with a cryptic final sentence ('plan the whole run, and a limit says so at the write it stops') that may puzzle an AI agent. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the extra guidance could be tightened for clarity.

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 no-parameter identity tool, the description sufficiently covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It even clarifies what it doesn't return (plan limits). It lacks exact output formatting details, but that's minor given the simplicity.

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 there is no schema to elaborate. The description adds meaningful output context (email, plan, holdings) that goes beyond the empty input schema, though parameter-specific semantics are not applicable.

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 what the tool does: it identifies which SubmitMap account a token belongs to, including the associated email, plan, and held items. This is a specific identity-check function that is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects or create_project, which focus on other actions.

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 guidance on when to call it: 'Call it first if you are unsure whether the maker is connected' and emphasizes it's the only way to distinguish accounts. It also advises against using it for plan limits ('It does not hand you the plan's limits'), but doesn't name alternative tools for that purpose.

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