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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the '*' wildcard meaning and by explicitly stating it returns no codes and no credentials, a useful boundary for an agent deciding whether to spend a call here.

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 front-loaded sentence with the wildcard caveat parenthesized inline, so nothing is buried. Slightly run-on because two distinct result sets (permissions and pending approvals) share one sentence, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still explains the one thing the schema likely cannot: the '*' wildcard convention and the no-credentials guarantee. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete, missing only guidance on when to call it versus get_status or get_config.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly requires no input arguments and instead spends its words on explaining output-side semantics, such as the wildcard grid entry.

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 names a specific verb ('Reports') and two concrete resources: per-grid permissions/access expiry and actions pending owner approval in GridBot AI. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_orders or get_usage, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no prerequisites are given; the reader must infer that this is the pre-flight check for access and approvals. The only exclusion is implicit in 'Returns no codes and no credentials', which steers credential lookups elsewhere.

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