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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the 'scoped principal' qualifier, which hints at scope behavior but does not explain how scope is determined, what permissions look like, or any auth requirements. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral context.

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 four-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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, the description provides the essential return concept: scoped principal permissions. However, there is no output schema or elaboration on the permission structure, and no sibling differentiation, so an agent may still be uncertain about the exact meaning and when to use it.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so the baseline is 4. The description's phrase 'scoped principal' helps explain why no explicit scope parameter is needed: the scope is the calling principal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('scoped principal permissions'), and the title adds 'economic' domain context. It is clear enough to be told apart from most siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping tools like get_economic_mandate or get_economic_passport.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives. With dozens of get_* siblings, an agent is left to infer eligibility and selection criteria from the name alone.

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