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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting anything about permissions needed to see role/tax data.

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 read scope is front-loaded in one dense sentence, and the triggering conditions follow in a second. The first sentence is long and stacks six clauses, but every clause maps to a distinct returned field, so nothing is padding.

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 does the job of describing the return payload, and does so field by field. Only minor gaps remain, such as how 'import credits' are counted or what the role values look like, which a caller must discover at runtime.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is required and spends its words on output instead.

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 ('Shows') and enumerates the exact resource contents: workspace, role, AI write permission, plan limits, remaining import credits, and tax setup. It is unmistakably the context/diagnostics tool among siblings like aalto_get_product or aalto_import_start, and an agent can tell them apart without opening a 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?

Gives three concrete invocation triggers: when a write is refused, before a large import, and before a schedule involving VAT/GST/sales tax. That is strong 'when to use' coverage, but it names no when-not conditions and no alternative sibling for any of those situations.

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