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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned account sections and explicitly states the 403 response for foreign accounts, though it does not discuss output shape or ledger pagination.

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 key action and read-only nature are front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned data and an authorization note. The trailing EN keyword list is low-signal but does not materially hurt readability.

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 show tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the required ID source, summarizes the returned sections, and states the important 403 authorization behavior.

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 single profile_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including its source. The description repeats that source and adds the foreign-account 403 behavior, but adds no new syntax or format semantics for the parameter itself.

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: fully reading a managed account. It enumerates the exact contents returned (profile, web user, memberships with all three rights, default write target, and ledger entries), which lets an agent distinguish it from listing or mutation siblings.

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 clear usage context: the profile_id comes from ontouser_team_index, the operation is read-only, and foreign accounts return 403. It does not explicitly route modification tasks to ontouser_team_update_profile or other alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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