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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a discovery tool that surfaces an 'authority contract' but explicitly does not itself grant authority, and it flags that full detail 'can be very large'. These non-obvious behavioral traits are useful to the agent.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the write-contract and detail guidance. Each sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter discovery tool.

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 read-only capability-discovery tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, the write-safety entry point, and the detail trade-off. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents parameters, so the remaining need is small. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit routing against the get_x1_context/guide siblings.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description still adds real semantic value by explaining the intended sequencing: use toolName 'before a write' to obtain an execution/authority contract, and reserve detail: full for large diagnostic responses — guidance not present in the raw schema text.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a compact summary of the connected user's X1 entitlements, feature access, subscription context, and MCP scope visibility', which clearly identifies a capabilities/introspection tool. It also discloses a second mode (per-tool write contract via toolName). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_x1_context, get_x1_guide, or get_x1_workflow_guide, so an agent must infer which introspection tool to pick.

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 a concrete trigger condition: 'Before a write, pass toolName for that mounted write tool's complete execution and authority contract', plus 'Use detail: full only for large diagnostic responses.' This tells the agent when to use the summary mode vs the toolName mode vs full detail. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or routing to a specific alternative sibling among the many get_* tools.

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