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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns both available commands and business reasons for blocked ones, and those reasons are meant to be surfaced verbatim to a person.

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 short, front-loaded with the core behavior, and each sentence adds distinct value: what it returns, why it is authoritative, and how to use blocked reasons.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description explains the conceptual return value and the intended handling of blocked reasons sufficiently for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or examples, which is acceptable but not additive at this level.

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 capability: listing commands currently available on an entity and explaining why blocked commands are unavailable. It distinguishes this from guessing at a state machine and ties the result to the same evaluation used for live UI buttons.

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 usage guidance: prefer this over guessing at a state machine, and quote blocked reasons verbatim because they are user-facing. It does not name alternate sibling tools or explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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