agency_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by flagging that this returns a 'raw document' and contrasting with agency_branding which 'never returns secrets' — implying this one may expose sensitive data. It stops short of stating what fields or how sensitive, so not a 5.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the alternative and the disambiguations. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 output schema exists, and the description tells the agent it returns a 'raw document', which is enough to set expectations. A hint about the document's shape or secret exposure would make it complete, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that the implicit input is 'this workspace secret', which frames how the tool is scoped even with an empty schema.

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 the current agency account') and immediately scopes it to 'this workspace secret (raw document)'. It explicitly names the siblings it is not — agency_branding, orgs_read, clients_read — so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use agency_branding when the goal is branding (logo, colours, fonts, language, login page), and notes it is typed and never returns secrets. It also distinguishes the tool from orgs_read (child organizations) and clients_read (end-user accounts), covering the main ambiguity cases.

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