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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the call consumes no credits, and a single balance is shared across all Skael services (lead lists, enrichment, scraping, SkaelReach videos) — a fact that affects how an agent plans subsequent spending. No output schema exists, so the enumerated return fields also carry real weight.

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?

Purpose and return contents come first, then billing scope, then cost and the 'first call' recommendation — a sensible front-loaded order. The middle list of returned fields is dense but each item is informative; the only mild redundancy is repeating 'Guthaben' in two sentences.

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, the description's enumeration of return values is exactly what an agent needs to know what it will receive. It also covers cost and billing scope. Minor gaps: nothing about failure modes or how the organization parameter interacts with the ORG_AMBIGUOUS response, though the schema covers the latter.

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 optional 'organization' parameter is already documented in the schema, including the ORG_AMBIGUOUS trigger condition. The description adds no extra meaning about that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 concrete verb and object ('Zeigt, als wer du bei Skael angemeldet bist') and then enumerates exactly what identity/account data comes back: person or API key, role, organizations, credit and € balances, open requests, remaining daily budget, enabled features. No sibling tool (pipelines, market estimation, lead projects) does anything similar, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

'Guter erster Aufruf' and 'Kostet nichts' give a clear situational cue for orienting before other calls. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or naming of an alternative sibling, but the tool is functionally unique enough that this is a minor gap.

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