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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does disclose the sections returned (narrative with provenance sources, path-in plan, contacts including gaps, recent activity, suggested next actions), which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations. It does not address behavior for an unknown account id or payload size, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key qualifier ('Full account') front-loaded, so an agent gets the gist immediately. The keyword-list style is dense and slightly telegraphic ('path-in plan', 'what can be done next'), but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned facets and the annotations cover safety. The main gap is that it omits failure/empty behavior and leaves undefined domain terms ('path-in plan', 'gaps') to inference.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% ('The account. An existing account id.'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier's format, source, or resolution rules — 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?

The description enumerates what a 'full account' contains (narrative with sources, path-in plan, contacts, activity, next actions), which implies retrieval, but never states a verb such as 'retrieve' or 'returns'. It is distinguishable from crm_update_account by the read-like framing, but nothing explicitly differentiates it from siblings like crm_coverage, crm_gaps, or crm_get_contact.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives — crm_coverage, crm_gaps, crm_today, crm_list_contacts, or crm_get_contact all overlap with the payload facets listed here. Nor is there any stated prerequisite (e.g., that the account must already exist) beyond what the schema implies.

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