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), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral rules: absent facts are treated as unapproved, missing discount approval is reported explicitly, and results are paginated evidence rather than a verdict. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the evidence/not-approval distinction. Every sentence carries information, though the 'If a fact is absent...' and 'If no discount is approved...' lines are slightly repetitive in structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills in the domain rules an agent needs (absent = unapproved, offset paging for a complete audit), with the only real gap being undocumented parameter meaning.

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 three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at pagination semantics for 'offset' ('Page with offset') but says nothing about what productId scopes or what proposedText must contain, leaving two required parameters 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?

States a concrete verb ('Show') and resource ('the locked approved record') and clarifies the tool audits proposed pitch text against approved facts. It also differentiates itself from write siblings by stating 'it does not save or approve anything,' though it never names a sibling 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?

Offers one real usage rule — 'Page with offset before claiming a complete audit' — which tells the agent how to use results completely. However, it gives no when-to-use versus get_approved_context or search_approved_facts, and no explicit exclusions beyond the generic 'does not save or approve.'

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