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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior: remote processing without persistence, incompatible shares staying unallocated, and disclaimed legal/enforcement functions. This goes beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loads the main function before the revenue split and boundary disclaimers. The list of disclaimed capabilities is a little long, but each sentence carries content and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema and detailed input schema, the description covers the main operational context: remote processing, no persistence, exact input retrieval via fetch, and non-legal boundaries. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it leaves detailed validation to the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter at a basic level. The description maps 'intended AI use' to the use parameter and 'received revenue' to receivedRevenue, but it does not add deeper semantics for asOf, region, currency, or datasets beyond what the schema provides.

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 leads with a concrete action: 'compares an intended AI use with your recorded grant conditions' and includes the revenue-split calculation. It distinguishes the tool's core from fetch by pointing to fetch for retrieving permits, though it does not explicitly compare it against the other siblings.

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 intended use is implied: use when you need to match an AI use against grant conditions and split revenue. It tells users to retrieve exact inputs via fetch or the example resource, and lists disclaimed functions (no legal opinion, enforcement, etc.), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings.

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