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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: it is scoped to 'the signed-in user' and requires OAuth authentication. Return contents are summarized though no output schema exists.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the usage guidance and the auth requirement. Every clause carries information; no waste.

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 single-parameter read tool the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and the auth requirement. With annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, nothing an agent needs 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?

There is only one parameter (context) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it with its own detailed guidance. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 exact resource (the signed-in user's LuxAlgo account) and enumerates its contents (plan tier, entitlements, profile basics). It clearly distinguishes this account-lookup tool from the journal/library/propfirms siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives concrete triggers: 'use it to tailor answers to what the user's plan actually allows' and 'when the user asks what plan they are on.' It also states the prerequisite (sign in with a LuxAlgo account / OAuth). No alternative tool is named, but none of the siblings overlap this function.

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