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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value by disclosing that the channel context is resolved internally, but the phrase "Requires HGRApi Header channel" is cryptic and never explained.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the auth note second. The jargon in the second sentence is dense but not verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. With read-only annotations covering the safety profile, the definition supplies enough to call the tool correctly; only the ambiguous auth phrasing falls short.

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% and the sole parameter already documents that channelOAuthId comes from hgr_list_channels, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's "ChannelOAuthId resolved internally" does not add meaning beyond what the schema states.

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?

"Reads pricing rules for one visible store" names a specific verb (reads) and resource (pricing rules), scoped to a single store. The read verb implicitly distinguishes it from hgr_add_pricing_rule, hgr_update_pricing_rule and hgr_delete_pricing_rule, though none are named explicitly.

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 description gives no when-to-use instruction, no exclusions and no routing to alternatives, despite the presence of add/update/delete pricing-rule siblings. Only the phrase "for one visible store" hints at scope, and the channel prerequisite appears in the schema rather than the description.

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