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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful conditional behavior — quota omitted and unlimited:true when quotas are disabled, max_subdomains semantics with plan-specific caps, plan enum values, and the upgrade hint. It does not state read-only nature or auth requirements, leaving a modest gap.

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 core action, then elaborated in a single dense paragraph. Given there is no output schema, the field-level detail is largely justified, though the plan/quota trivia is borderline verbose for a read tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does so thoroughly, including conditional fields and enum values. Missing only minor operational detail such as auth requirements, which is low-stakes for an account-introspection call.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing beyond the schema to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description appropriately spends its detail on return values instead of non-existent parameters.

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 ('Show the current account') and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, state, email + verified flag, domains, claimable domains). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_domains or get_domain, which operate on domains rather than the account.

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?

No explicit 'use when / don't use when' guidance, though the tool's self-inspection nature is implied by the name and description. The only routing signal is the passing reference to upgrade_to_pro, which is a side note rather than guidance for choosing this tool.

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