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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the scope of the data returned (account plan, desktop check-in recency, campaign status breakdown, and a fixed 30-day results window), which is meaningful behavioral context that the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: the verb and resource lead, and the enumerated contents follow as the qualifier. Every clause maps to actual returned data rather than restating the title.

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 correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back and does so concretely, including the time window. It omits any note on response format or freshness beyond the desktop check-in detail, but for a read-only zero-parameter summary tool the coverage is close to sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on this dimension.

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+resource ('Summarise the ZenMode account this connector is signed in to') and then enumerates exactly what the summary contains: plan, desktop check-in, campaigns by status, and 30-day results. This scope distinguishes it cleanly from the per-campaign siblings (get_campaign, list_campaigns) and the narrower get_desktop_app/get_setup_status tools without needing to name them.

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 description makes the usage context inferable — it is the account-level overview/rollup — but never states when to prefer it over get_setup_status, get_desktop_app, or get_safety_status, which partially overlap with the check-in data it returns. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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