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

Adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: FREE businesses cannot use it, requires permission checks, and involves displaying warnings. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then instructions. Sentences are mostly concise, though the instruction list is somewhat lengthy. No fluff, but could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Covers the full usage flow: pre-checks, warnings, access conditions. However, it lacks any description of return values or what happens on success/failure. Also missing parameter details. Still useful for a tool with no output schema.

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%, but the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It only mentions 'communityId' implicitly via 'managed community' but leaves 'key' and 'actionCenterObjectId' undefined. Fails to help the agent understand parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the verb 'dismiss', the resource 'action center item', and the scope 'for a managed community'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dismiss_cmp_home_get_started' by specifying the resource type.

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 explicit preconditions: check business permissions, call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, show grace-period warnings, and never proceed when access is blocked. This gives clear usage context and alternatives.

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