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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation; the description adds real behavioral context about authorization gating, FREE-tier exclusion, and grace-period/resubscribe handling. It stops short of disclosing the effect of repeated calls (idempotency) or whether the viewed flag is per-user or per-community, which is the main remaining gap.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the gating rules follow in short imperative sentences that each carry a distinct constraint. It is slightly policy-heavy for a one-parameter tool, but no sentence is 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 one-parameter state-flag mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts well: permission checks, tier restrictions, and blocked-access handling. What is missing is narrower — repeat-call behavior and the exact success signal — which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more consequential.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already warns not to invent IDs and to source them from list_businesses. The description only implies communityId through the phrase 'for a managed community' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Mark the monetisation modal as viewed for a managed community.' That is distinguishable from neighbors like set_money_page_viewed or mark_cmp_home_tutorial_watched because it names both the exact artifact (monetisation modal) and the entity type (managed community).

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?

It gives explicit preconditions and exclusions: check business permissions first, FREE businesses cannot use the tool 'regardless of individual feature rows,' and access-blocked cases must not proceed. It also names the concrete gate tool (check_business_tool_access) to call before collecting inputs, leaving little to inference.

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