check_shadowban

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

Annotations only declare the operation read-only, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing that the check uses the OTHER configured account as an authenticated witness. This informs the agent that the call may rely on a second account's credentials and perspective, which is useful beyond the schema.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the verb and needed outcome, with no redundant filler. The witness mechanism is included compactly.

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 an output schema and readOnly annotation, the return shape and safety are covered, but the parameter semantics are left unresolved and no usage boundary is given. For an account-verification tool this is a meaningful gap because calling it correctly depends on knowing which account the parameter controls.

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 schema provides no description and the tool description never clarifies the role of the optional account parameter—whether it names the account being checked or the witness account. Some meaning is inferable from the phrase 'Verify the account,' but the ambiguity between target and witness remains.

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 states a specific action—verify account-level visibility to Reddit—and names the method (using the other configured account as an authenticated witness). This clearly separates it from sibling check_post_visibility, which concerns posts rather than the account itself.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to confirm whether an account is visible to other Reddit users. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or direct the agent to an alternative like check_post_visibility for post-level checks.

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