Account status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious trait that it surfaces a pending login in progress. That is genuine context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about behaviour when unauthenticated or failing.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned fields and followed by the pending-login caveat. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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, the description must convey the return shape, which it does by listing the key fields plus the pending-login state. It omits error/unauthenticated outcomes, a minor gap for a trivial no-arg introspection tool.

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 under the rubric. The description returns nothing extra needed here, as there is nothing to parametrise.

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 names the resource (the connected account) and enumerates what is returned: email, organisation, credits, plan access, enabled tools. An agent can distinguish it from session-mutating siblings like login/logout, though it never states the verb as directly as a sibling routing line would.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call to inspect the current session, but no when-to-use/when-not or alternative (e.g. vs. login, or vs. list_tools) is stated. The pending-login clause hints at a pre-auth check use case but stops short of guiding it.

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