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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds return details: 'Returns each account's id, dns, label, and an "is_default" flag (true when only one is linked).' It also explains the account parameter format for other tools, which is behaviorally relevant. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and provides additional details efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaningful information 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 read-only list tool with no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the return format and the cross-tool usage of account. However, it omits the semantics of the tool's own 'account' parameter, which is a significant gap given the schema has no description. This prevents full comprehension and potentially incorrect invocation.

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?

The input schema has an optional 'account' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fails to explain what this parameter does for this specific tool. It only mentions that other tools accept an account parameter and how to format it, but does not clarify whether passing 'account' to evo_list_accounts filters results, returns a single account, or has any effect. This leaves the parameter ambiguous.

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 clearly states 'List all EVO gyms/branches linked to this install.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling evo_* tools which focus on other entities like activities, employees, or sales. The scope ('linked to this install') is explicit.

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?

The description explains the tool's role in the ecosystem: it returns account identifiers used by other evo_* tools. It states 'When multiple are linked, every other evo_* tool accepts an optional `account` parameter; pass id, dns, or label (full or partial).' This gives clear context on when to use this tool (to obtain account info) and how it relates to siblings. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this tool before others' but implies it strongly, and it does not mention exclusions or alternatives.

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