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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it names the concrete blocking states (LinkedIn-restricted, paused for the week, cooling down, switched off), explains that new work is still accepted while the allowance is exhausted, and states the null-and-note convention for unobservable counts. This is exactly the behavioral 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-loads the purpose and then enumerates return contents in one dense but waste-free paragraph. The long multi-clause sentence is information-rich rather than padded, though readability of the enumeration could be tighter.

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 carries the return-value burden itself and does so thoroughly, listing what is reported and how unknowns surface (null with a note). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and the schema already documents campaign_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by explaining the effect of the parameter ('to judge one campaign's account'), slightly exceeding baseline.

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 ('Read') and resource ('ZenMode's own limits say about this account right now') and enumerates the returned facets (new-work allowance, blocking reasons, desktop app status, business hours, call limits). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_account_summary or get_setup_status without opening another schema.

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 usage context and explicitly routes the optional parameter ('Pass campaign_id to judge one campaign's account'). It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative sibling for the account-level vs campaign-level case, so it stops 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.