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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the exact fields returned and the optional `with` parameter for including users/fields/pipelines. It does not contradict annotations and provides concrete behavioral expectations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and key details without wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 tool with good annotations and a simple purpose, the description is mostly complete. It explains the output fields and optional expansions, but lacks any mention of the `account` parameter semantics or return format. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, slightly reducing completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `with` parameter as optional for including additional data, but the `account` parameter is not described at all. This partial coverage provides some meaning but leaves a significant gap for one of the two 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 clearly states it returns data of the connected Kommo account, listing specific fields (id, nome, subdomain, currency, timezone) and the optional `with` parameter for additional data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_list_accounts by focusing on a single connected account rather than listing accounts.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving account metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like kommo_list_accounts or other kommo tools. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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