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

The description discloses that this is a mutation ('Sets') and that confirmation is required before execution. It also provides important constraints (account_fk cannot be 0, alias should be unique). However, with no annotations, the description still omits critical behavioral details such as whether an existing alias is overwritten, if changes are reversible, or what errors might occur, limiting transparency.

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 somewhat repetitive: the first line 'Sets a friendly name/alias on an account' is nearly duplicated in the second line 'Sets a friendly name/alias on an account_fk.' The @param blocks are useful but could be better integrated. The redundancy makes it less concise than it could be.

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?

The description covers all four parameters and includes a return note (`@return: a json object`), which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior), error conditions, or valid alias constraints, leaving the tool not fully specified for an agent.

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 description provides rich parameter explanations beyond the schema: api_key is the application key, token is from /access/login, account_fk is explicitly noted as a database ID not an address and cannot be 0, and alias encourages uniqueness. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this detailed guidance fully compensates and adds meaningful context.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Sets a friendly name/alias on an account.' This unambiguously identifies the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like account_address or account_info, which handle different account attributes.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to set a friendly alias on an account) and includes a procedural note to confirm before executing. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use this tool, so guidance is present but not thorough.

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