check_account_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the important fact that the tool does not share local AuthContext and that the client is responsible for authentication/authorization. However, it omits details like whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or rate limits, so transparency is only partial.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The additional two sentences about AuthContext are relevant and add necessary context without being overly verbose. Structure is clean and readable.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides adequate context: it explains the purpose, the parameter's role, and the auth responsibility. It does not describe return values, but that is covered by the output schema. Some details like error conditions or example usage are missing, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the meaning of customer_id by noting that external MCP clients must pass it because AuthContext is not shared. This adds rationale beyond the schema's bare type definition, though it doesn't specify format or constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the current status of a customer account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools (orders, product availability, policies) and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining that it accepts a customer ID because an external MCP client doesn't share AuthContext. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when to prefer this tool over siblings, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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