parallel_account_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral context: this is a pure router that performs no login/navigation/session creation, and each child enforces its own review, freshness and single-submit guards. What it omits is equally important for a dispatcher, namely what happens on an unknown account or unknown tool_name, whether errors are surfaced or swallowed, and what a caller receives back.

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 routing purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the whole thing is compact. But "Unknown submissions remain unknown" is cryptic filler that does not earn its place, and the closing guard sentence is compressed to the point of being hard to parse.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage mean the description is the only contract available. For a dispatcher that takes an arbitrary tool name plus an opaque arguments bag, it should specify the legal tool set, the error semantics for unknown accounts, and the pass-through relationship to the child's own guards; it does none of the first two.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that tool_name must be one of the child worker's tool names, nor what shape arguments should take, nor how account_id is resolved. The single most consequential ambiguity in a dispatcher, which tool names are legal, is completely unaddressed.

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 does state a verb and resource: route a review/readback to the correct account's existing MCP worker. However, it is a meta-dispatch tool whose purpose only becomes concrete once the agent already knows what tools exist on the child workers, and it never differentiates itself from plausible siblings like desktop_account_tool, recover_graded_parallel_account, or retry_parallel_account.

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?

"No login/navigation/session creation here" is a real exclusion, and "existing MCP worker" implies a precondition (the account must already have a live worker). But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternative named, and no explanation of what an agent should do if the worker is absent, so usage is only implied.

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