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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the account is the one behind the API key, and the response includes specific configuration fields and their downstream use. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a read-only account lookup that is minor.

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 front-loaded and dense: one main sentence lists the returned information, then two short sentences add usage guidance and the API endpoint. Nothing is wasted.

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-parameter, read-only account lookup with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it lists the fields returned, explains the API key scope, and clarifies how the returned IDs relate to another tool.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so schema coverage is complete and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input semantics beyond that.

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 names a specific verb and resource: retrieving the Corsizio account behind the API key. It enumerates the fields returned and ties the configured IDs to corsizio_list_events, making it clearly distinguishable from the attendee/event siblings.

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?

It explicitly says "Good first call" and explains that the returned location/category/etc. IDs are the filters for corsizio_list_events, giving clear context for when to use this before listing events. It does not state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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