Check connected account safety

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the exact endpoint, required scopes (safety:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (redacted), and the note that idempotency is not required. This is useful operational detail for safe invocation.

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 front-loaded with the action and scope, then lists technical requirements in a compact, scannable form. Every line contributes necessary information without repetition.

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 read operation with two optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the operation, required auth, sensitivity, idempotency, and workspace override. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional workspace parameters. The description adds only a minor clarification that the default workspace comes from the environment. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read each connected channel account's safety status and 24-hour send count.' This is a unique resource among the sibling tools, so an agent can identify the operation without opening schemas.

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 provides context for overriding the workspace via workspaceId or workspaceSlug, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any usage exclusions. Usage is implied by the read operation, which is minimally adequate.

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