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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds useful behavioral context by listing the returned data fields and noting the underlying GraphQL `me` query, though it does not describe error handling or rate-limit behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence plus a short technical note. Every element adds useful information about scope or return content, with no filler.

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 simple, zero-parameter, read-only account retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness: resource identity, authentication context, returned fields, and the underlying query. Nothing critical is omitted for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which correctly presents this as a no-argument account lookup.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the Superphone account behind the API key and enumerates returned fields, which distinguishes it from contact, conversation, and message tools. It lacks an explicit retrieval verb in the description itself, but the title 'Get account' and the GraphQL query reference make the purpose unambiguous.

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 intended usage is implied: call this when you need the account associated with the API key. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer or avoid this tool versus alternatives, but for a zero-parameter account tool the implication is reasonably clear.

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