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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a scoping constraint ('one authorized client') and a note that suggestions/unknowns remain explicit, but says nothing about the cursor-based pagination implied by 'after' or about permission requirements per resource, such as the 'billing:read' hint, which is only parenthetical.

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 entire definition is one long, comma-spliced sentence mixing resource names with marketing-style phrasing ('saved facts and actual channel readiness', 'Suggestions and unknowns remain explicit'). The resource-to-purpose mapping is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded as a list, making it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but a four-parameter, four-mode tool at 0% schema coverage needs more than this. The unexplained partnerId/businessId distinction (when is each required, what authorization is needed) and the unmentioned pagination behavior leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must carry meaning and only partially does. It effectively glosses the four enum values of 'resource', which is real added value, but leaves 'partnerId', 'businessId', and especially the 'after' cursor completely unexplained.

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 verb 'Read' plus an enumerated set of resources (installations, support incidents, billing evidence, discovery facts/channel readiness) tells the agent this is a multi-resource read tool, and the four listed items loosely map to the four enum values. The phrasing is dense and idiosyncratic ('inventory one authorized client's saved facts'), but the resource scope is discernible without opening the 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_* tools (e.g., get_channel_status, get_setup_checklist, get_billing_contacts), and no when-not guidance. At best, selecting a 'resource' implies the agent should pick the relevant facet, which is implied usage rather than stated guidance.

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