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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the important 'requires authentication' constraint and explains the return fields (creator ID, plan, content count), providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and lists key output fields, then adds the authentication requirement. No wasted words.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description effectively explains what the tool does and what it returns. For a simple account info display tool, this is sufficient, though an example return format would further improve 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?

The schema has no parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying what account information is returned (creator ID, plan, content count), adding semantic value by telling the agent what to expect.

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 verb 'Show' and the specific resource 'current user's ProofX account information', listing concrete fields like creator ID, plan, and content count. It completely distinguishes this from sibling tools which are about creators, content protection, verification, or hashing.

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 mentions 'requires authentication' which implies the tool is only for authenticated users, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs siblings (e.g., when to use get_creator instead). No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided.

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