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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it takes no arguments, derives the account from the connection, and does not consume plan stops. It also explicitly warns the agent not to claim the account is invisible or that no profile tool exists, which is useful behavioral guidance.

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 output scope, no-arguments, and read-only behavior, then moves into usage and troubleshooting. It is wordier than needed for a zero-parameter getter, but each sentence carries actionable guidance, including what not to claim and how to respond when the wrong account is connected.

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 zero-argument read-only tool, the description is complete: the output schema covers return values, annotations cover safety, and the description covers invocation, when to use it, and post-call failure diagnosis. Nothing needed to select or call the tool correctly is missing.

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 are zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is little to document. The description still adds valuable semantic context by stating 'Takes no arguments' and explaining that the account comes from the connection itself, preventing an agent from inventing an account parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show which Vepathos account this connection uses and what its plan allows') and enumerates the exact fields returned. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which are about automation, optimization, imports, and datasets, while this one is the account/quota introspection tool.

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?

The description explicitly says when to invoke it: immediately for account/plan/quota questions, before large optimizations to check limits, and when diagnosing plan, quota, or authorization rejections. It also tells the agent what not to say and how to handle the wrong-account case, which removes ambiguity about follow-up behavior.

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