Show the Vimeo account this server is connected to

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by naming what the call returns (plan, upload quota, token scopes), including quota and permission information that matters when deciding whether subsequent uploads will succeed.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the identity/scope of the call and appends the returned fields. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so reasonably by naming the four main fields. It does not, however, describe the shape or nesting of the response (e.g. quota units, scope list format), leaving a small gap for a tool whose whole value is its payload.

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, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's field list describes outputs, not inputs, and does not create confusion about arguments.

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?

States a specific verb (show) and resource (the Vimeo account this server is connected to), and enumerates the returned fields: name, plan, upload quota, token scopes. No sibling tool returns account/identity data, so it is easily distinguished from the video-, folder-, and showcase-oriented siblings.

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 implies usage (verify which account and token capabilities are in play) but never states when to call this versus other tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free tool this is acceptable but there is no explicit guidance.

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