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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds value by disclosing the breadth of the returned policy set, including the unusual '6-hour cancellation' clause, which tells the agent what classes of questions this document can answer. It stops short of saying whether the terms are static or versioned.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the resource name followed by a tight content enumeration. Every listed item corresponds to a topic an agent might need to answer, so nothing is 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?

With no parameters, no output schema and rich annotations, the remaining burden is telling the agent what the call returns — which the content list does well. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate whether the response is one static document or a structured set of fields, which mildly matters for follow-up reasoning.

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 tool takes no parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% but empty, so no compensation is needed.

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?

The description names the resource (Celadon's wholesale terms) and enumerates the exact content covered — eligibility, pricing, case packs, payment, cancellation, delivery, claims, authenticity. That enumeration clearly separates it from the sibling tools, which all operate on products or orders. It lacks an explicit verb, but as a document-fetch tool the content list is more informative than a verb would be.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus e.g. quote_wholesale_order or search_wholesale_products, though the content list strongly implies it is the tool for policy/process questions rather than catalog or pricing lookups. For a zero-parameter, zero-ambiguity tool this is adequate but not spelled out.

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