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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: visibility depends on whether the key is account-wide or department-scoped, pagination is driven by meta.next_page, and the underlying call is a read-only POST. These are useful non-obvious traits an agent would not infer from the annotation alone.

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 purpose, followed by scope, pagination and HTTP verb in a compact sequence. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical defining departments is the only slightly verbose element but it earns its place given the domain term.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description mentions meta.next_page, hinting at the response envelope's pagination field. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage of parameters, the definition is nearly complete; only an explicit note on the returned department object shape is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents page, page_size and the meta_data key/value matching semantics. The description only restates pagination ('pass meta.next_page as page'), adding nothing new, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 departments') and immediately defines what a department is ('independent organization units with their own designs, groups and branding'). This scope definition cleanly separates it from the singular accredible_get_department sibling and from the other search_* tools.

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 tells the agent how results vary by key type ('An account-wide key sees all, a department key only its own'), which implies when results will be partial. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus accredible_get_department or other search_* siblings, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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