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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the report is owner-only and specifically avoids exposing content to buyers, which is a privacy/visibility trait beyond the annotations. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only tool with these annotations, this is adequate.

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 a single 12-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read actionable owner-only failures and next actions') and then appends the privacy qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the report contains, who it is for, and the privacy boundary. No additional context is needed to correctly select or invoke this tool.

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 input schema covers the single parameter productId with a clear description ('Tetrees AI Pack product id'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the schema already fully documents it, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource: 'actionable owner-only failures and next actions'. The phrase 'without exposing them to buyers' adds the private/owner-only scope, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_ai_pack_report'. The title reinforces the purpose with 'private Agent AVCP feedback'.

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 clearly implies the tool is for owners to read their own private report, contrasted with exposing information to buyers. This gives clear contextual guidance for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state a direct 'use this instead of X' condition, so it falls just short of full explicitness.

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