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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: per-account billing, an extra profile-lookup charge on the first page only, empty results for non-Verified Organizations, 404 for missing or protected accounts, and a rationale for why protected accounts are hidden. That is exactly the kind of cost and failure-mode disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return semantics, error cases, and pagination in a logical order. The billing information is mildly duplicated ('Billed per account returned' followed by the full credit breakdown), costing a little density but each statement still carries actionable detail.

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 still tells the agent what comes back, how to detect more pages via meta.nextCursor, which error conditions to expect, and the full cost model. Nothing an agent needs to call and paginate this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the first page pays for a profile lookup to resolve `{user}` while later pages carry the account in the cursor, which tells the agent why `cursor` must be reused unchanged. It does not elaborate on `limit` behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Get an organisation's affiliated X accounts') and immediately defines the resource: accounts a Verified Organization lists as affiliated, such as employees, products, or regional accounts. That definition is enough to separate it in practice from followers/following siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance for pagination ('When meta.nextCursor is set, call again with cursor set to it') and explains when results are empty (non-Verified Organizations). It does not say when to prefer this over adjacent siblings such as get_x_user_followers or get_x_users, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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