Get Account Access

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing that the value is read-only by design regardless of tool inventory and by describing the shape of the returned setting.

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 tight sentences: the reported content comes first, the immutability constraint second. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming 'mode' and the account fields (id, name, type). Combined with the explicit immutability note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for zero-param tools applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the account access setting') and enumerates the returned fields (mode all/restricted, accounts with id, name, type). It implicitly separates itself from listAccounts by scoping the accounts to those 'MCP clients may use', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

It clearly states the negative case: the setting cannot be changed by any tool, only by the user in the Options page, which prevents an agent from hunting for a write counterpart. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over listAccounts for enumerating accounts.

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