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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: that it returns the account itself (org name, redirect URLs, features) and that it can serve as an API-key health check. It doesn't describe return format beyond the field list, but with annotations carrying the read-only status this is adequate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating what is fetched and why, followed by the endpoint reference. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 compensates by naming the key fields returned (organization name, redirect URLs, features) and the endpoint. An agent has enough to call it correctly and understand the response shape.

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 schema (trivially) covers everything and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 (Fetch) and resource (the authenticated Codat account's profile), and enumerates the returned fields (organization name, redirect URLs, features). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling data-retrieval tools like codat_get_company or codat_get_balance_sheet.

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?

Provides a concrete usage context — 'a quick way to verify the API key works' — which tells the agent when this tool is useful. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not to use it (e.g., vs codat_request), so it doesn't reach the top of the scale.

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