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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields (buyer stats, unread messages, favourite counts) is the only source of return-value information, which is genuinely valuable; it does not, however, mention auth or scope limitations beyond 'signed-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?

A single compact phrase that front-loads the resource and then lists the payload. It is a noun fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 parameterless read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what account, what fields. It could be more complete by noting the overlap with cotlet_whoami or the auth requirement, but the essential context is present.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing a pure account-context fetch.

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 names the resource precisely — the signed-in PeoplePerHour account — and enumerates the fields it returns (name, type, buyer stats, unread messages, favourite counts). The verb is implicit ('Get' only appears in the name/title), and it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-scoped cotlet_whoami sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus cotlet_whoami, cotlet_balance, or list_notifications, even though cotlet_whoami appears to overlap in returning identity information. The description provides only content, not selection criteria.

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