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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is light. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: access is grant-scoped and never widens automatically, which shapes how the agent should reason about missing scopes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core function front-loaded and the remediation note second. Every clause earns its place.

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 values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adequately covers scope and the reconnect path for a single-parameter read tool, with the only real gap being the undocumented brandId parameter.

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 one required parameter (brandId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema carries no semantics. The description never mentions brandId or what it identifies, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented across both surfaces.

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) plus two concrete resources (allowed tools and brand timezone) scoped to 'this grant', which is clear and non-tautological. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling capabilities tools (get_automation_capabilities, get_intelligence_capabilities, get_report_capabilities), so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

Gives an actionable remediation path ('Reconnect to request missing scopes'), which tells the agent what to do when expected tools are absent. It stops short of explicit when-to-use framing or naming alternatives among the capabilities siblings, but the operating context is clear.

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