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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the caveat that api_key.permissions lists special capabilities rather than general read/write scope, plus what the payload contains. It stops short of describing pagination or output shape.

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 dense but front-loaded on the return payload before moving to usage and routing. Every sentence carries information, though the long field enumeration makes it heavier than it needs to be.

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 no parameter descriptions, the description carries the disclosure burden and does cover return contents, read-only semantics, and when to reach for it. The missing coverage of six input parameters is the one real hole.

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 0% for 7 parameters. The description explains only the view enum (summary vs data_map) and leaves limit, offset, domain, tool_names, entity_type, and metric_family entirely undocumented in both schema and prose. It adds real meaning for one dispatch parameter but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource (get_account_info) and then enumerates the concrete return payload: display name, safe prefix, access status, marketplace scope, exposure cap, connection status, coverage dates, and tool availability. An agent can distinguish this account-level introspection tool from the dozens of sibling get_* data tools without opening the 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?

It gives explicit triggers (user asks which key/marketplace, whether access is active, whether write access exists, what date range is available, or verifying setup before answering data questions) and routes the cross-domain case to view=data_map. It also draws a boundary against tools/tool_scope_by_domain for effective access.

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