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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what data is returned but does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., not-found behavior, staleness, or timing). No contradiction exists.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states what the tool returns, the second states requirements, and the third gives lookup guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the purpose, required parameters, and how to source the non-obvious accountId. No critical context is missing.

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 coverage is only 50% because accountId lacks a description, and the description compensates by identifying list_accounts as the source for valid accountId values. It also confirms the platform enum values. It could add more about the expected form of accountId, but the added guidance is materially useful.

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 specific verb ('Get') and a well-scoped resource: 'detailed account health info,' and enumerates concrete contents (status, budget usage per action type, ramp-up state, last activity timestamps). This clearly separates it from list_accounts and other account-adjacent tools without needing to inspect 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 states required inputs (platform and accountId) and tells the agent to use campaignstack_list_accounts to discover valid accountId values, which is practical selection guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when to use get_account_maintenance instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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