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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope details: it discloses what the response does not include (customer name, refund), which prevents an agent from expecting those. It does not, however, mention rate limits or authentication requirements beyond 'No sign-in'.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses four short sentences with no wasted words. Some minor redundancy exists, but it remains efficient.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and what it excludes. It could mention error cases or limits, but it is largely complete for the given complexity.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the return content rather than parameters, which is the correct emphasis for a no-param 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?

The description states a specific resource and the exact information returned: the in-app deletion path and the confirmation word. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_account (account data) and esim_install_steps (eSIM steps) by focusing on a procedure.

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 implies this is for obtaining deletion instructions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. ask_support or other help tools. Usage is inferable from the purpose, but no alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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