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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'It changes nothing' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive line is the auth constraint — 'You never name a company: the tenant comes from your token' — which is not derivable from any structured field and prevents a common misuse.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the source of valid operations. 'It changes nothing' is the only near-redundant sentence against the readOnlyHint annotation, but it is brief enough to earn 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?

Covers the three things an agent must know to call it correctly: where operations come from, how arguments are shaped, and how tenancy is resolved. With no output schema, return shape is left implicit, though it is defined per-operation by discover_operations, so the gap is minor for a generic dispatcher.

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%, so both parameters are already documented; baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete argument shape ({"id": 7}), which is useful, but 'goes at the top level' is ambiguous given the schema requires a wrapping 'params' object, so the added value is partial.

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 ('Run one of the read-only operations') and names the sibling (discover_operations) that supplies the valid operation list, which cleanly separates it from call_write_operation. It is slightly abstract because the concrete operations live elsewhere, but an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the 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?

The prerequisite is explicit: only operations that discover_operations has listed may be run here, and the read-only framing implicitly routes writes to call_write_operation. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion, but the context is unambiguous.

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