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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot convey: the per-call cost (5 prepaid credits) and the production-billing prerequisite, which materially affect whether an agent should invoke it. It stops short of describing what the comparison returns or how excess is classified.

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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the billing constraint placed second. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and cost but omits the shape of the result and the accepted scope representation. An agent knows why to call it and at what price, but not fully what it will receive back.

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%, so the description carries the burden, and it does map the two array parameters to their semantic roles (delegated scopes vs. principal scopes). However, it gives no detail on element format for those arrays, which leaves an agent guessing at what to put inside them.

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?

Names a specific comparison operation ('compare delegated scopes with principal scopes') plus its detection goal ('detect excessive delegation'), which is far more informative than the title restatement. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast itself with the other privi_pro_* tools, but the scope-delegation subject matter is distinctive enough that an agent can identify the resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no stated preconditions for the analysis (e.g., scope format, whether both lists must be non-empty). The only usage-adjacent statement is the billing requirement, which is a commercial gate rather than a selection guideline.

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