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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral context, such as requiring permission checks, business type restrictions (FREE not allowed), and the need to show warnings and block progression when access is denied. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences long and covers key points efficiently. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary warnings. Minor improvement would be to structure the warnings more clearly, but overall it is concise and informative.

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?

While the description covers business rules and preconditions well, it omits details about the output (what 'usage stats' and 'limit' mean) and does not explain the 'window' parameter. Given the lack of output schema and parameter documentation, the description leaves some behavioral and contextual gaps, making it partially complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the purpose or meaning of the 'window' or 'communityId' parameters. For a tool with undocumented parameters, the description should compensate by clarifying their semantics, but it fails to do so, leaving a significant gap.

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 tool retrieves 'Magic Reach send limit and usage stats for a managed community,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool's scope by mentioning a prerequisite tool (check_business_tool_access), aiding in differentiation from siblings.

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 explicitly outlines when to use the tool: after checking business permissions, calling check_business_tool_access, and handling grace-period warnings. It also specifies exclusions (FREE businesses cannot use) and instructions to never proceed when access is blocked, providing comprehensive guidance.

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