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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: it clarifies that credentials are not exposed and accounts cannot be modified, and that an empty result yields a short explanatory note. This is useful context beyond the structured hints, though permission or pagination behavior is not covered.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded followed by safety and empty-state notes. Slight overlap between 'Read-only' and the readOnlyHint annotation, but it earns its place by specifying what read-only means here.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries most of the explanatory burden and does so: it names the returned fields and describes the empty-result case. Only auth/permission context and result ordering are absent, which are minor for a simple listing call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the description correctly says nothing about inputs. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the broker accounts the user connected') and enumerates the fields returned (name, platform, demo/live, status). An agent can distinguish this from get_positions, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only framing and the listed account fields, but the description never states when to call this versus adjacent tools like get_positions or list_supported_platforms. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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