cyberqp_check_jit_account_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the operation is only an existence check, explains that account metadata is returned if present, and explicitly rules out returning secrets. This is strong for a read-only check, though it could also describe the absent-account case.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical clarifying scope and safety. Every clause adds information, and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 existence check with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, return behavior, and a key safety constraint. It lacks explicit behavior for when no account exists, but the tool name and 'existence check only' phrasing make the intent reasonably clear.

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 100%, with all parameters already documented, including agentId being required for LOCAL accounts. The description only restates the high-level 'customer + directory type' combination and adds no new parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a JIT account exists for a customer + directory type.' It clearly frames the tool as an existence check and distinguishes it from account listing or status siblings by adding '(existence check only).'

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to check existence for a customer and directory type. It also explicitly warns that this tool never returns a password or OTP code, which helps prevent misuse. It does not name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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