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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false (indicating a write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool is restricted to managed communities and requires permission checks and a warning step. It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not describe what happens after the action (e.g., success response, side effects), leaving some ambiguity about the exact outcome.

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, starting with the core purpose and then efficiently listing preconditions and warnings. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, straightforward action), the description covers business logic prerequisites thoroughly. It lacks information about the return value (no output schema) or what 'modal viewed' implies, but the extensive usage guidelines provide sufficient context for safe invocation. For a low-complexity tool, it is nearly 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 one required parameter 'communityId' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The tool description does not explain this parameter, relying on the parameter name and tool context. While 'communityId' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add guidance beyond what the name implies, such as format or source. This is a gap given the low coverage.

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 specific action: 'Mark the monetisation modal as viewed for a managed community.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_money_page_viewed' by targeting the monetisation modal specifically. The verb 'mark as viewed' and the resource 'monetisation modal' are concrete and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit instructions on when and how to use this tool: check business permissions, note that FREE businesses cannot use it, call 'check_business_tool_access' before collecting inputs, show grace-period warning and verified resubscribe link, and never proceed when access is blocked. This covers prerequisites, exclusions, and required pre-steps comprehensively.

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