audit_account

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a prioritized list of problems and recommendations, which goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the output structure and the 'one-shot' nature, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 concise sentences, first describing the action and output, second providing usage guidance. No superfluous words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (prioritized list of problems and recommendations). For a 0-parameter diagnostic tool, this is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and what it returns.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema fully describes them (none exist). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the tool performs a 'one-shot health check' of the entire Resend account, listing domains, API keys, and recent deliverability, then returning prioritized problems. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_domain (per-domain) or analyze_deliverability (focused).

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 says 'Great first call when emails aren't working', providing a clear use case. While it doesn't mention when not to use or list alternatives, this guidance is sufficient for the primary scenario.

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