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

With no annotations provided, the description usefully discloses the key behavioral trait: this is a dry run and nothing changes, so it is safe to call. However, it does not explain what the preview returns, whether it validates the account, or any prerequisites, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated preview operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run purpose and immediately followed by the no-side-effect assurance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted text.

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 description covers the essential safety profile for a simple dry-run tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent without information about what the preview actually shows or how to interpret the result. It is minimally adequate but not complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter, `account_id`, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it does not compensate by clarifying that this is the ID of the publishing account to preview disconnecting.

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 action ('Dry-run of removing') and resource ('a publishing account'), making clear it is a preview rather than a real disconnect. It does not explicitly name the sibling `disconnect_content_account` as the actual-mutation alternative, but the preview-versus-real distinction is still evident.

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 clearly frames the tool as a dry run ('Nothing changes'), implying it should be used before actually removing an account. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the mutation sibling to call afterward, but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple preview tool.

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