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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds real value beyond them: the values are the same validators and business actions used by the console, passkeys and two-person approvals remain enforced, and discovery does not confer access. That is useful trust and side-effect context for an agent deciding whether this read is sufficient.

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 tight sentences, with the core action stated first and the security caveat second. Slightly dense phrasing ('authoritative fields, permission and approval requirements') but no filler.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (fields, permissions, approval requirements) and that no access is granted. Adequate; an explicit note on the shape of the returned schema would be the only remaining gap.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the pattern and the hint to source the id from list_commands. The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 and resource: reads the authoritative fields plus permission and approval requirements of a shared application command. It is clearly distinct from the listing sibling list_commands (which the schema points back to), though it never explicitly contrasts with get_command_authorization or prepare_command, the closest alternatives.

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?

'discovery never grants access' implies this is an inspection step, not an execution step, and the schema's 'Exact id from list_commands' tells the agent where to get the input. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for authorization checks (get_command_authorization) or execution (execute_command).

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