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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readonly/idempotent annotations by specifying what is checked: token scopes, enabled modules, subscription state, and quota. This clarifies the scope of the preflight without contradicting the annotations. It stops short of noting that no operation is actually executed, but 'preflight' conveys this.

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 purpose ('Preflight whether an intended operation is allowed') and then lists the check dimensions and parameter options. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 an output schema present and annotations providing safety signals, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the tool's purpose, the specific constraints checked, and how to invoke it with the relevant parameters. No significant gap remains for a preflight check tool.

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 input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance by instructing the caller to provide toolName, quotaCode, or moduleCode, which clarifies that these are the primary selection keys and implies at least one should be supplied. This improves the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Preflight' and clearly identifies the resource being checked: whether an intended operation is allowed by token scopes, enabled modules, subscription state, and quota. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_tool or get_plan_status by focusing on permission/eligibility checking rather than execution or plan status retrieval.

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 phrase 'Preflight whether an intended operation is allowed' clearly implies use before invoking an operation, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest tier.

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