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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds output field context but does not disclose what the optional `account` parameter does or any pagination/limitation behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves the parameter's role unexplained, which is a necessary detail for correct invocation. It provides the core purpose and output fields but lacks sufficient guidance for full self-contained understanding.

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 schema has no description for the `account` parameter (0% coverage), and the description only mentions using `account` in 'other tools', not in this tool. It fails to explain whether the parameter filters, selects, or does something else, so the agent cannot reliably decide how to set it.

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 the tool 'Lists the Kommo accounts connected to this install' with a specific verb, resource, and scope, and it reveals the output fields (id/subdomain, label). It also distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by focusing specifically on account discovery.

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 provides clear context by explaining that the returned id/subdomain should be used in the `account` parameter of other tools, which implicitly tells when this tool is useful (before using other Kommo tools). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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