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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it clarifies token scoping ('the token acts on'), describes the returned payload including parent/child account behavior, and notes the call is cheap — all useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the return contents and a usage note. The trailing 'When I Work: GET /2/account' mapping is compact and informative rather than wasteful.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it explains what is returned, how parent accounts behave, and why an agent might call it. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema coverage is 100% but empty, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 When I Work account/workplace), and enumerates what it returns: company name, plan, settings, and child accounts for a parent account. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which all operate on shifts, users, time-off, or lists.

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 use case ('A cheap way to confirm the credentials work') and implicitly scopes the call to the token's account. It does not name alternatives or when-not to use it, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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