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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantive domain behavior: only APPROVED-status rules carry authority and that authority is exercised via evaluate_commitment, not by reading this list. It says nothing about what includeRetired surfaces, but the safety-relevant behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the domain constraint front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information: the operation, the authorization path, and the misuse warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the authorization model is well covered. The remaining gap is the includeRetired parameter, whose meaning and effect on results is undocumented anywhere, leaving an agent unable to reason confidently about non-default invocations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. Neither deskId nor includeRetired is explained, and the key semantics of includeRetired (what a 'retired' rule is, and why you would include one) is absent from both the schema and the description.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Read refund rules on a desk.' This clearly separates it from the write sibling save_refund_rule and from the commitment-oriented listers. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_approved_commitments, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives real usage constraints: only APPROVED rules authorize wording, authorization flows exclusively through evaluate_commitment, and the list itself is not permission to invent a refund. That is strong when-to/when-not guidance, though it never states when to prefer this lister over list_approved_commitments or get_desk_context.

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