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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the call is account-private and requires a session cookie plus a browser CSRF token. It omits any note on pagination behavior, which keeps it short of 5.

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 with zero filler; the scope statement comes first and the access requirement second. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations, and both sentences carry information.

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 should at least indicate what a call returns (a collection of the account's procurements) and how the cursor pages through it. It covers scope and auth but leaves the return shape and pagination flow to inference, which is thin for a list tool.

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 100%, so the single cursor parameter ("antes", hex, exclusive cursor of the client) is already fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or pagination semantics beyond what the schema says.

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 private collection of the account" implies a read of the caller's own data but never names the resource (procurements) that the tool returns, so it leans on the tool title rather than stating a verb+resource. It also does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_procurement, list_saved, or my_documents, so an agent must guess how this differs.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance anywhere in the description. The stated session/CSRF requirement is a precondition, not a usage directive, and nothing tells the agent when to pick my_procurements over get_procurement or list_saved.

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