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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the two farms are separate, and docs, links, viewers, and analytics never mix between them, which helps the agent understand data isolation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then moves directly into usage triggers and the downstream routing step. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying when to call this tool and how its result should be used, without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough context to invoke it correctly: what farms are listed, when to call it, and what the returned account is used for. No critical information is missing for the agent to act.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and its mention of passing `account` downstream is about another tool rather than this tool's own parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list the farms this connection can reach. It precisely defines what is returned, including the signed-in account and an optional connected account, and explains the work/personal split that distinguishes this account-listing tool from the document-oriented siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call this FIRST whenever a request could concern either farm, when the person says 'my personal', 'my work', 'my other account', or names an address that is not the signed-in one. It also tells the agent what to do next by passing the selected account to the actual target tool.

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