read connected sync account

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds real operational context beyond them: account is null under an API key, limits/plan/generationLimits/features are omitted when lookup fails, and an expired sign-in raises an error. It also explains organizationChoice provenance and the capabilities field, and closes by confirming it grants no permissions and mutates nothing.

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 paragraph is front-loaded with purpose, then usage routing, then failure modes, which is the right order for an agent. It is dense and long for a zero-parameter read, and the closing restatement of the no-side-effects guarantee partly duplicates the readOnly/destructive annotations.

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 parameterless read with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns, which fields may be absent, and how failures surface. Nothing material is left unstated.

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?

With zero input parameters there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline applies. It instead spends its detail on response-field semantics (organizationChoice, capabilities, omitted-on-failure fields), which is useful but belongs to the output side rather than parameter meaning.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: "Read who is signed in and which sync. organization this session runs in," then enumerates the payload (plan, generation limits, feature flags, team seat and voice-clone limits). It explicitly separates itself from account_get-usage and organizations_list/organizations_select, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any schema.

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 states the two motivating cases ("name the organization before paid work," "check limits before planning a job") and routes the agent elsewhere for credits/balance/spend and for listing or switching organizations. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use alternatives are named explicitly.

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