Who am I

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it explains that verification is performed via a one-result search because 'Reed has no account endpoint.' That is genuine behavioral disclosure about the underlying mechanism.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The implementation note is parenthetical and brief. No wasted words.

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 a rich output schema and full annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. It covers purpose and the underlying verification approach. The main gap is the absence of usage guidelines relative to sibling tools.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema description coverage is 100%, and there are no parameters to document further.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Verify the credentials and describe the connected account.' This is specific enough for an agent to know it's an identity/account check, distinct from get_posting and search, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those 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 phrase 'Verify the credentials' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternatives like search or get_posting. Usage is only implied.

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