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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the GET /admin/<kind> endpoint and the 'one set per call' scoping, but says nothing about return shape (id/name pairs) or rate/permission constraints. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a reasonable 3.

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 purpose clause is correctly front-loaded, but the inline enumeration of all 13 kind values duplicates the schema's enum verbatim, consuming most of the description's length without adding information the schema does not already carry.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, and the kind vocabulary, and pagination is handled in the schema. It stops short of describing the returned id/label structure, which would be the one remaining gap.

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 page, per_page, and kind are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the kind enum rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond it, so 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 one set of account lookup values') and immediately clarifies the downstream purpose ('to get ids for filters and writes'). The enumerated kinds make it unambiguous versus siblings like list_deal_stages or list_deal_pipelines, which return pipeline structure rather than flat lookup vocabularies.

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?

Clearly conveys when to reach for it: to resolve ids for filters and write operations. It does not name an alternative or state exclusions (e.g., when a domain-specific listing tool would be preferred), which keeps it short of a 5.

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