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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' partly repeats structured data. However, the description adds the auth requirement, which annotations do not convey, and clarifies the aggregate nature of the payload (account card combining profile, wallet, orders, referral stats).

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-loaded with the resource and its payload, then usage examples, then the exclusion. The six quoted example phrasings are somewhat repetitive, but each maps to a distinct sub-query and remains short overall.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and it still notes the payload mirrors the account page. It covers scope, auth, and the sibling boundary — nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level.

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?

Specific verb (pull) plus resource (authenticated user's XP account card), and it enumerates the concrete contents — profile, wallet, email, name, order history, referral stats. It differentiates from the nearby get_my_orders and get_my_referral_kickbacks siblings by naming one alternative explicitly.

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 both when-to-use (user asks 'my account', 'my orders', 'my referral link') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative named: tickets delivered to the account should use get_my_tickets instead. An agent can route without inference.

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