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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: entitlement conditions (paid/lifetime for Operator, beta for campaign actions), that feature flags are account-wide, and crucially that the result is 'not an action authorization or credit quote' — a boundary/caveat that prevents misuse.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then entitlement rules and a boundary caveat. Every sentence conveys actionable information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value burden but adequately signals what the snapshot represents and what it is not, which is the key semantic an agent needs. It stops short of describing the return shape, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is a minor gap.

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. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already implies.

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 (read) and resource (current account access for Operator and campaign actions in the selected product), which is more than a tautology. It differs from the many get_* siblings (get_product_context, list_preferences) by targeting entitlement/access state, though it doesn't name a sibling to route the agent explicitly.

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 the usage context by explaining entitlement requirements for Operator and campaign actions, but never states when to call this versus alternatives like get_product_context or a campaign fetch. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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