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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds useful context: it notes that billing access requires the 'billing:read' scope, that access is limited to an 'authorized client,' and that 'suggestions and unknowns remain explicit.' This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not cover pagination behavior despite the 'after' parameter.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the action ('Read') and the resource options. It is dense but contains no obvious filler; the second sentence about suggestions and unknowns is short and relevant.

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. However, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage alternatives provided, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call this tool without inspecting the schema further.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies the meanings of the 'resource' enum values, which is helpful, but gives no information about the required 'partnerId' or the optional 'businessId' and 'after' parameters, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a clear verb ('Read') and enumerates the resources it covers (installations, support, billing, discovery), which distinguishes it from many siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from the more specific sibling tools like agency_installations or agency_support, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that cover the same resources. The only implied usage is selecting the 'resource' parameter, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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