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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context beyond that: the entitlement gate on the plan's ai_fix_cards facility and the fact that each card carries what/why/steps/agent prompt. It stops short of saying what happens on an unentitled plan, but the gating statement implies a refusal.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded before the prerequisite. The parenthetical card breakdown is compact and information-dense rather than redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies what matters: scope, return contents, and the entitlement requirement. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior or volume/pagination expectations, which are unlikely to change how the agent invokes it.

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 single productKey parameter is already documented, including a pointer to list_products. The description adds no extra meaning about the key's format or origin, so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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 specific resource and scope: 'All stored AI fix cards for one product', and even enumerates the payload shape (what/why/steps/agent prompt per issue). No sibling tool returns fix cards, so the agent can distinguish it immediately from get_insights, get_bottleneck, and the product/analytics tools.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition: 'Requires a plan with the ai_fix_cards facility', which tells the agent when the call is valid. It does not name an alternative or exclusion path, but no sibling offers comparable output, so there is little to route against.

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