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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is low. The description still adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned data — access categories plus when and how each was unlocked — which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists its scope. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results, and it does so at a high level (categories and unlock provenance). For a zero-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient; a note on result ordering or whether access is workspace-scoped would close the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate arguments, and nothing misleads about how the call is made.

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?

States a specific resource (the signed-in person's access/entitlements) and enumerates its scope: the Codex, event series, the Forge, tools. That enumeration implicitly separates it from my_bookings, my_wallet and my_profile, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'signed-in person' framing and the 'my_' naming convention. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus my_profile or my_forge_sessions, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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