Show the Audial account in use

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds that it reads local settings only, which tells the agent there is no network call and no remote state fetched. That is meaningful extra context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention what happens when no account is signed in.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the usage trigger and a scoping note. No sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the local-read scoping note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly in a credentials-troubleshooting flow.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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: it reports whether the machine is signed in to Audial and under which identity. This clearly separates it from the credential-mutating siblings sign_in/sign_out, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with service_status or pipeline_status.

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 concrete trigger conditions: use it when a tool reports a credentials problem or when the user asks which account is in use. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., 'not for checking server health, use service_status'), so no explicit exclusion is stated.

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