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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what each action reads and a get_info workflow, but does not add auth requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral detail beyond the annotations and schema.

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 front-loaded with the core read purpose and structured by action. The first sentence is dense with semicolon-delimited enumerations, but the content is relevant and the second sentence adds useful workflow context.

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?

The tool has annotations, an output schema, and complete schema description coverage, so much of the needed context is supplied structurally. The description covers the three actions and get_info prerequisite workflow; only minor details like include_management_scopes and explicit sibling exclusions are left to schema or inference.

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%, so the input schema already documents action, ds_id, and include_management_scopes. The description restates the action meanings and notes ds_id for two actions, but adds no extra syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read your Supermetrics account and team.' It then enumerates the three action-specific resources: profile/permissions/license/team members, prioritised accounts, and login link. The read framing also implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling manage_user_and_team.

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 provides concrete workflow guidance: use get_info to find license_id and team member user_ids before assigning users to a subscription. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus manage_user_and_team or state exclusions, so it falls short of full alternatives guidance.

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