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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses passivity ('Read-only and passive (never prompts)'), the unverified edge case for closed apps, and the meaning of all_granted: true. These are behavioral facts an agent can't infer from readOnlyHint alone.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the core behavior, then add the setup use case and edge-case result. No filler; the list of permission categories is concrete evidence rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with an output schema, the description covers all call-time information: use timing, passivity, unverified handling, and the all-granted completion signal. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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?

Clearly identifies it returns macOS TCC permissions not yet granted, with a scoped outcome and specific examples. It distinguishes itself as the setup-time permissions checker among siblings like permissions_status by emphasizing 'NOT granted' and the one-click remediation URL.

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?

Explicitly says use it during setup or before a workflow to surface remaining Allow clicks instead of failing mid-task. It doesn't name alternatives or give when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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