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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing that all transactions are deleted along with the account, that the operation is irreversible, and that the finance:delete scope is required. It also surfaces a refusal condition and a pre-flight check, which are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 destructive action, then the safety prerequisite, then the alternative and auth requirement. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, every decision-relevant fact is present: cascade scope, irreversibility, required scope, pre-check, and safer alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (accountId, removePortfolioTransfers) are already fully documented, including the refusal consequence of omitting the flag. The description adds workflow context around transactionCount via a sibling tool but does not add syntax or meaning to the declared parameters themselves.

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?

"Permanently delete an account together with all its transactions" states a specific verb, resource, and cascade scope. It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like archive_account, update_account, and delete_transaction, which are named or implicitly excluded by the account-level framing.

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?

Explicit preconditions ("call get_account first and read its transactionCount") and an explicit alternative with its selection condition ("To keep the history, use archive_account instead"). The schema also documents the refusal case when removePortfolioTransfers is omitted, so both paths are covered.

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