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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the read-only SELECT constraint and the 500-row cap, which an agent needs to anticipate result truncation. It does not describe error behavior or how to page beyond 500 rows.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the primary capability is front-loaded and the row cap is appended as a secondary constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the row limit, which is enough to call it correctly. A note on pagination or failure modes would complete it, but the coverage is strong for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented (query as a GAQL SELECT, customer_id with format and provenance from list_accounts). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Runs) and resource (read-only GAQL SELECT), and explicitly positions itself as the catch-all for questions the other tools don't cover. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like account_overview or find_wasted_spend without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the fallback condition ('questions the other tools don't cover'), which tells the agent when to reach for this instead of the specialized tools. It stops short of listing which specific questions require it or any exclusions, but the routing intent is clear.

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