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

Annotations already declare this readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return content (account identity, allowed actions, review location, next_steps) and the connection-type behavior — a meaningful addition not present in structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, well front-loaded — return semantics first, then the 'call this first' directive, then the parameter condition. The opening sentence packs several clauses but each carries distinct information, so the length is earned.

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 only one optional parameter, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so explicitly (account, permissions, review location, next_steps). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%: the `artist` parameter is already fully documented with its label-only condition and fallback to list_roster. The description restates the label-connection case, adding context but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb and resource — it returns the account the connection acts in — and enumerates exactly what comes back (permissions, review location, next_steps). The artist-vs-label distinction makes it clearly distinguishable from catalog siblings like get_profile or list_roster.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this first, and again whenever you are unsure whose catalog you are working in.' It also names the conditional path (pass `artist` on a label connection) and points to list_roster as the source of that value, routing the agent without ambiguity.

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