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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context: 'It returns names and hierarchy, never rupee amounts,' which clarifies the return scope without contradicting 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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage context, and behavioral caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the simple read-only list tool, the description plus schema fully cover what an agent needs: return type (names/hierarchy), non-financial nature, and pagination parameters. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys return content.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to; the schema already documents client_id, page, and page_size thoroughly.

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 opens with 'List the profit centres for an entity', a specific verb+resource with scope. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's used 'before a user confirms any explicit mapping', clarifying its role versus confirmation/mutation tools.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use context: 'Use this to explain available targets before a user confirms any explicit mapping.' However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the phrase implies it precedes confirm_centre_mappings.

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