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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety basics. It adds useful context by emphasizing that the tool never creates a card setup or charges money, though it could say more about what the returned consent version and conditions contain.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and sequencing constraint. Every clause adds either purpose, usage context, or a behavioral boundary without unnecessary repetition.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite timing, and the key non-effect of not moving money. It leaves the return contents slightly implicit, but the essential information needed to select and invoke it correctly is present.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, matching the baseline for a parameterless operation.

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 states a specific verb (read) and resource (currently required consent version and conditions) and explicitly situates it relative to create_card_authorization. It also clarifies that the tool is for saved-card authorization terms rather than a generic terms lookup.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance ('before create_card_authorization') and a use case ('explain future off-session card charges and spending authority'). It does not explicitly compare against the sibling get_terms, which is a reasonable alternative for generic terms.

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