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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The id-format contract is the one piece of added behavior; the return shape it lists is already covered by the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The connector-contract parenthetical is jargon that adds little, but nothing is padded or repeated.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to call it, and the id contract. Missing only edge behavior such as a not-found or invalid-id case.

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 coverage is 0% and the single `id` parameter has no schema description, but the description compensates by specifying the expected form ('platform:account_id') and its origin in a `search` result. That is a meaningful addition beyond the bare string type.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (expands a search result into account details) and enumerates the payload (name, id, currency/status), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It differentiates from the `search` sibling by naming it as the prerequisite, though it does not distinguish itself from `describe`.

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?

It supplies a clear trigger: call this after `search` using the 'platform:account_id' value from that result. There is no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the usage context is concrete rather than implied.

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