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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: 'visibility depends on account role,' which tells the agent results may vary by permissions. 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint and adds little.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then limitations. No filler and nothing that repeats structured data unnecessarily.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete, and the role-based visibility caveat is a useful addition. With no output schema, it could have described the returned account shape, which is the remaining minor gap.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the multi-workspace requirement for account_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning 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?

Specific verb and resource ('Gets account/workspace settings from /account'), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like get_me or list_workspaces, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

'Use for account-level configuration and metadata' gives implied usage context, but no when-not guidance and no alternatives are named among the many sibling getters (get_me, get_user, get_customer, list_workspaces). Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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