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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not restate safety. It adds feature examples but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return shape or auth requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The examples carry useful semantic weight without bloating the description.

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 simple no-param read-only capability lookup, the description gives enough to understand the operation. It does not specify the exact return shape (e.g., feature list vs. booleans), but the name and examples provide a workable baseline in the absence of an output schema.

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 has zero parameters)Skip? The 0 params baseline is 4: no parameter semantics need compensationjack. The description still clarifies the account context that would otherwise be ambiguous.

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 clearly states the operation: checking which account features are enabled, with concrete examples (BankID, templates, AI assistant). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_current_user or get_document because it targets account capabilities, not user or document data.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you need to know which features are enabled for the account. There are no competing sibling tools for retrieving capabilities, so explicit alternatives are unnecessary, though it does not spell out when not to use it.

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