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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific data points returned (plan, agent-ready %, product counts, timestamps), which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any potential latency/rate-limit behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific data points. The usage guidance is appended as a second sentence, making the whole description compact and efficient with no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what data will be returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on the exact response structure, but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a minor omission.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the summary contains, which is the only meaningful semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a high-level summary of the merchant's Pollen account, listing specific data points (plan, agent-ready %, product counts, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on account-level status rather than deep audits, pipeline status, or network insights.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this first if the user asks 'where do I stand?' or 'what's my status?'' This provides clear context and a direct trigger, making it easy for an agent to select this tool over alternatives.

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