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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a signed-in Printdash account is required and, absent one, the connection prompts the customer to sign in on printdash.io. It also disambiguates the discount_percent semantics (already baked into prices returned by the pricing tools), which prevents double-discounting. Minor gap: nothing about what is returned when parts of the account are incomplete.

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 answer ('Who the signed-in customer is'), and the auth prerequisite is placed last as a closing constraint. It is a long single sentence with heavy parenthetical nesting, which costs some scannability, but each clause carries distinct information rather than restating the name.

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 zero-param read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies more than required: auth gating, failure behavior, and discount interpretation. Some of the return-field enumeration is redundant with the existing output schema, which is why it is not a 5, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 4. The description's field enumeration describes return values rather than inputs and adds no parameter meaning beyond the empty schema, but there is nothing to document.

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 opens with a specific framing ('Who the signed-in customer is') and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: name, company, pricing tier, discount, personal vs Team buying, switchable Teams, and missing account fields. This is unmistakably the account-context tool and cannot be confused with siblings like get_order, list_addresses, or get_referral_summary.

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 mention that discount_percent is 'already in every price the pricing tools return' hints this should be read before pricing, and the sign-in prerequisite is stated explicitly. However, no alternatives or when-not conditions are given (e.g. use list_addresses to see missing addresses, set_context to switch Teams), so the agent must infer routing.

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