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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by clarifying what the account data includes and, importantly, what it explicitly excludes. This prevents an agent from expecting sensitive fields like credentials or API keys.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion list is a single useful sentence that earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, full annotations, and explicit exclusions, the description is complete. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call 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 description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter aiId is already documented in the schema. The description references 'authorized AIs', which loosely maps to aiId, but adds no new parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Read') and names the exact resource: the authenticated person's Darwin account context and authorized AIs. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly listing what is excluded (email, phone, credentials, API keys, application administration), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need the authenticated person's account context or authorized AI list. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are mostly action/search related, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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