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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds valuable behavioral context: the response is scoped to 'this grant', the timezone is included, and — crucially — that permissions do not auto-widen and require explicit reconnection. That last point is a policy behavior not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its return content, then the follow-up action. No waste, and the most important qualifier (existing access never widens automatically) is placed at the end for emphasis without bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be described. The description covers the tool's purpose, the trigger to reconnect, and a key access-policy behavior. The only gap is that it doesn't mention brandId or the identifier pattern, but that is minor given the single required parameter and output schema coverage.

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?

One parameter (brandId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema's pattern is the only guidance. The description does not explain brandId at all, but with only one parameter and schema coverage being a known gap, it meets the baseline of 3 rather than excelling.

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 verb (List) and resource (this grant's currently allowed tools and brand timezone), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_automation_capabilities or get_brand_context. An agent can tell it reports the grant's permitted tools and timezone without inferring.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to see allowed tools, and when to take the alternative action (reconnect to request missing scopes). Also states an exclusion: existing access never widens automatically. This is textbook routing guidance.

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