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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it is NOT gated by the Codes & Coupons module, only writes produce a module-not-enabled 403, and a 403 here should be investigated rather than blamed on the module. 'Never writes' and 'Read-only' partially restate annotations, keeping this from a 5.

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 what is read and the never-writes guarantee, then the workflow guidance, then the module/403 caveat. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with minimal restatement.

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?

For a single-param read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, sequencing, and the non-obvious 403 semantics. It could note return shape, but annotations and schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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 there is a single required sweepstakes_token fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and a precise resource (how a sweepstakes hands out codes on entry and AMOE pages, and what participants are shown and sent). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_code, get_entry_settings, and fetch_codes at a glance.

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 routes the agent: 'Call this before update_code_settings' with a stated reason (change only what the user asked, report current values). It names the complementary sibling and the condition, though it doesn't spell out when not to call it.

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