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 safety profile is covered. The description adds that MCP approval requirements are configurable and business approvals always apply, which is some extra context, but for a read operation it is ambiguous and doesn't clarify what the budget-impact payload contains or whether approvals gate access.

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?

Three short sentences with the usage hook front-loaded and no filler beyond the somewhat tangential approval sentence. Efficient overall, though the middle clause about configurable approvals is detachable boilerplate.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. However, with one required param at 0% coverage and no statement of what 'budget impact' comprises, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 single parameter changeRequestId has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and it doesn't — it never mentions the identifier, its UUID format, or whether it refers to a change request within the connected organization. The required-param gap is left entirely to the raw schema.

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 and resource: 'Read change-request budget-impact' on RetailHardHat change_requests records. An agent can tell this is a read of budget impact for a single change request, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from close siblings like get_change_request or list_change_request_line_items.

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?

'Use this when working with RetailHardHat change_requests records in the connected organization' is platform-level boilerplate rather than a when-to-use rule. No alternatives are named (e.g., get_change_request for the record itself), and the approval sentence gives no selection guidance.

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