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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing the qualification criteria evaluated hourly, DB persistence with effect at the next hourly pass and no deploy, that already-offered teams keep their offer, and that percent=0 is the off switch. It also surfaces the operator permission requirement and the email delivery path, which annotations do not carry.

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 the critical constraint (OPERATOR ONLY) and organized as purpose, mechanics, parameters, persistence, read behavior, alternative. It is a long single block, and the qualification-criteria sentence is dense, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information rather than filler.

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 covers the read path and lists current defaults, so an agent knows what a parameterless call yields. It is complete enough for correct invocation; only the exact shape of the read response is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a dual read/write tool.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents every range and meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description adds rationale the schema lacks - why afterDays floors at 8 (the trial-ended reminder fires at 7, so the last offer must follow it) and what the defaults are when nothing is supplied - which meaningfully informs parameter choice.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reads or sets the install-wide automatic last offer, with the exact object (discount on first months of a new subscription after an unpaid trial) spelled out. It is clearly distinguishable from the adjacent sibling li_set_team_discount, which is named as the one-off-per-team alternative. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: OPERATOR ONLY, partial updates ('give any of the four; the rest stay'), and the read path ('omit all four to read the current settings'). It also names the closest alternative (li_set_team_discount) and the condition that selects it, plus the marketing mail opt-out interaction that gates the email send.

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