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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one domain constraint (unlisted dedicated agents must not be promised), which is real context, but says nothing about the includeRetired filter's effect or result ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. The trailing domain rule is somewhat tangential to the listing operation but is at least substantive.

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 described, and annotations cover safety. However, with three undocumented parameters (including a defaulted filter) and no indication of pagination or the meaning of retired promises, the definition is thin for the tool's surface.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and fails: planId and catalogId are never explained, and includeRetired (default false) is undocumented, leaving the agent to guess what 'retired' promises are and whether they appear by default.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read staffing promises') and scopes it to 'one customer plan', which distinguishes it from save_staffing_promise (write) and the plan-level evaluators. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings, but the read+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus evaluate_support_promise, save_staffing_promise, or evaluate_plan_coverage. The second sentence is a business rule about dedicated agents, not a usage condition or exclusion that helps select the tool.

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