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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: what the preview reveals (own scopes, foreign memberships with managers, balance), that it changes nothing, and that deletion is blocked with a 400 when the account is the last manager of a scope.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the read-only preview purpose, then the returned impact details, then the last-manager restriction, then the ordering rule. The closing EN keyword tag is minor, and the substance is dense without wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter, read-only preview tool, the definition covers purpose, behavior, return content, an important blocking condition, and sibling ordering. Even without an output schema, the agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 only parameter is profile_id, and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage as the managed account's profile ID. The description adds no additional syntax or constraints for that parameter, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it previews the effects of offboarding a managed account, is read-only, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the actual offboarding action by saying to call this first and then ontouser_team_offboard.

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 an explicit ordering rule: 'Immer zuerst aufrufen, dann ontouser_team_offboard.' That tells the agent exactly when to use this preview relative to the sibling mutation tool, leaving little inference needed.

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