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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that: the approval-version semantics ('Approval versions never change installed execution or frozen gross-revenue terms') and the private-capability authorization requirement. It still says nothing about what 'paginated history' returns or its bounds.

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, no filler. The phrasing is jargon-heavy ('frozen gross-revenue terms', 'original private creator capability'), which slightly impairs immediate comprehension.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden; 'metadata and paginated history' gives a rough picture but limit/cursor behavior is unexplained. With annotations covering safety and two of four params undocumented, the description is minimally complete for a read 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% – just creator_capability is documented. The description gestures at that capability's role ('original private creator capability') but adds no semantics for tool_id, limit, or cursor, and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('approved tool metadata and paginated history'), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_creator_terms. However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with the closest sibling, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 implies usage context via 'using its original private creator capability,' but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no alternatives versus get_creator_terms. An agent must guess which of the two creator-facing tools applies.

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