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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It explains what the tool reports, why it exists, and which downstream tools may be subject to account entitlements or usage limits.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the key instruction: call this before attempting an action. It is dense but mostly purposeful; the entitlement list is useful, though the sentence is long and could be structured as a short list for faster scanning.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is returned in prose and gives the agent a clear operational reason to call it.

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 are no parameter names, enums, or formats to clarify in the description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: discovering what the connected Bullrun account can do. It clearly enumerates the reported capability categories, including authentication identity, Pro/trial status, OAuth scopes, portfolio usage limits, and per-tool entitlements, making it distinguishable from the sibling tools.

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 timing guidance: call this first before attempting an action, especially when a draft/write tool might be gated. It also states an alternate use case: confirming which account a request will act on, which directly maps to real agent workflows.

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