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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful scope context (this is preview-only; the mutation lives in Democruit settings), but the remainder of the text just enumerates return fields, which the output schema already owns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the scope caveat and then the return summary. No filler and nothing buried.

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 rich annotations, a full output schema, zero required params and complete schema descriptions, the definition is nearly self-sufficient. The only meaningful gap is not mentioning that the keep-selection options may be paginated via 'cursor', which could lead an agent to report a partial list as complete.

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?

Both optional parameters are documented at 100% schema coverage, including the guidance to omit them by default, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about how 'cursor' affects paging through keep-selection options, which is the one place extra meaning would have helped.

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 ('Preview') and a specific resource ('whether an annual pass can be paused and which documents remain available'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also scopes the tool by stating the actual pause happens in Democruit settings, which separates it from a mutating sibling like reactivate_annual_pass, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Usage context is clear: call this to check pause eligibility, and the pause itself is performed elsewhere in Democruit settings, which prevents the agent from expecting a write. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with reactivate_annual_pass or saying when a preview is unnecessary.

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