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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral context: results are a selection rather than exhaustive, negative outcomes are surfaced explicitly, and locked facts must not be contradicted. It does not cover rate limits or result shape, but the output schema handles returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints in short, scannable sentences. Slightly choppy and mildly redundant ('the result says so. Do not invent one'), but essentially every sentence carries an instruction.

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 the description still states that results are a selection and that unapproved entitlements surface as such. Combined with the usage timing and request-format guidance, this is nearly complete for a read tool, missing only per-parameter detail.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameters. It adds meaningful semantics for `request` (a brief topic query, never a chat transcript) but says nothing about `accountId` or `limit`; the latter is largely self-documenting via defaults/bounds in the schema. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource: retrieve the approved renewal record, and frames it as a prerequisite to answering renewal questions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling search_approved_terms, though the notion of an "approved renewal record" (vs. a broader approval set) stays slightly fuzzy.

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 an explicit when ('before answering about a renewal') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('use search_approved_terms for a specific missing term'). The agent is routed correctly without inference.

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