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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the rejection semantics at launch and the explicit statement that it returns no account/org identity — useful context that prevents misuse. It stops short of noting whether demo status can change mid-session or anything about caching/staleness, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the reason to call it first, then the consequence and the workaround, then what it does not return. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what the return contains (demo status, what you can do, upgrade path) and what it omits (account/org identity). For a zero-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by framing it as a connection-level check.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check the account's context, specifically whether it is a Mitigant DEMO account and what that permits. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like list_attacks and list_scenarios, which it references as downstream sources of the allowedOnDemo/demo_only data.

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?

Explicitly prescribes timing ("Call this first on a new connection") and gives a concrete conditional rule: if isDemo is true, attacks/scenarios with allowedOnDemo=false will be rejected, so don't attempt them and instead consult list_attacks or list_scenarios with demo_only:true. This is a full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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