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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response pairs the terms with an exact hash for signed acceptance, which is meaningful context, but says nothing about auth requirements, term format, or hash algorithm.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and its purpose front-loaded, and no filler. The construction 'their exact hash' is slightly compressed but not 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 must signal what comes back; it does so by naming the terms plus their exact hash and the reason they are needed. For a zero-parameter, read-only tool this is nearly sufficient, though the return format (text vs URL, hash encoding) remains unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty argument set.

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 ('Read company terms and their exact hash'), which clearly separates it from the onboarding/botrotation/plans siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for customer-owner signed acceptance' implies the context in which this tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or a named alternative to compare against. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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