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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: this reads cached stored data and incurs no collection charges. Pagination mechanics are left implicit, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the cost/behavioral note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the cursor's pagination role is documented in the schema itself. For a read-only list tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields do not.

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 only 33%: 'cursor' is documented in the schema, but 'limit' and 'includeArchived' have no descriptions anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap as required at this level.

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 ('List your tracked accounts') and even previews the payload ('profile counts and snapshot times'). It is distinguishable from list_followers/list_following by the word 'tracked', but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the possessive 'your tracked accounts' and the 'without collection charges' phrase hint that this is the cheap stored-data path. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., get_account or get_account_changes), so an agent must infer the routing.

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