fonzip_system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool exposes system configuration and connection data, but does not discuss authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or return format. This is acceptable given the annotations but not highly informative beyond them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's content scope, and the second immediately communicates the practical use case. Every phrase contributes to orientation and selection.

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 read-only discovery tool with a fully-described three-parameter schema, the description gives enough context to start using it correctly. It names the core resources and the start-here workflow. The absence of return-value details is mitigated by the read-only annotations and the enum-driven action schema.

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 all parameters and action-specific usage. The description only refers the agent to the bracketed field descriptions without adding new meaning or examples. This meets the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 identifies a clear functional scope: account and system information (connection verification via 'me', payment systems, bank accounts, marketing channels). It also states the practical purpose of finding IDs for other tools. It is somewhat broad because it covers multiple sub-actions, but the action enum in the schema supplies the missing specificity.

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 to start here when verifying setup or locating IDs used by other tools, which gives clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It does not name excluded alternatives, but the sibling tools are domain-specific and this is clearly positioned as the system-level discovery entry point.

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