account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it adds substantial behavioral context, such as billing details (per-provisioned-mailbox pricing), the meaning of activationState as the 'HONEST send state', and conditions for teardown. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but efficient, using a concise introductory sentence listing key fields, then brief elaborations on billing and activationState. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is clear with no redundancy.

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 fully covers the return data, including fields like recentActions[], teardown, and detailed activationState interpretations. It is complete for a read-only account overview, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool provides.

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 has no parameters, so description is not needed for parameter semantics. According to guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not add anything about parameters because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states it provides an 'Account overview' and lists specific fields (brand, plan, status, etc.). It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting that 'metrics' should be used for counts and 'infrastructure_status' for per-mailbox health, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool: it advises trusting activationState over 'sent' counts and directs users to other tools for specific needs ('Use metrics for counts, infrastructure_status for per-mailbox health'). It also explains the meanings of activationState values, providing clear context for decision-making.

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