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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that the profile is *authenticated* and that entitlement data is included, which implies an auth prerequisite and hints at the payload scope. It stops short of stating failure behavior when unauthenticated or any rate-limit characteristics.

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 sentences: the trigger list first, the return contract second. Each clause in the trigger list corresponds to a genuinely different user phrasing rather than redundant restatement, and the return statement is compressed to a single clause. It is front-loaded with the actionable condition.

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 zero parameters and an output schema already present, the description need not explain the return shape, and it does not attempt to. The remaining agent-facing questions — when to call it and what it conceptually returns — are both answered. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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; there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain or compensate for. Schema description coverage is reported at 100% with an empty properties object, so nothing is left undocumented.

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 a specific resource — the authenticated Cue profile and entitlement — and states verbatim what it returns. It is the only account/profile tool among the listed siblings (improve_prompt is unrelated), so an agent can select it without ambiguity. The trigger phrases (which account, which email, plan/subscription status) make the resource scope concrete.

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?

It opens with an explicit directive — "Always use this tool when the user asks..." — followed by an enumerated set of user phrasings that map to distinct intents (connected account, signed-in email, identity, plan/subscription tier). No alternative tool is relevant for this intent, so no exclusion clause is needed. The when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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