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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context beyond that: auditor is read-only and the consumer is never the counterparty, which is useful behavioral framing but limited in scope.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with the core question, with no wasted sentences. It is slightly cryptic in phrasing, but every clause (class list, auditor note, consumer exclusion) carries 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the missing value set for the single parameter. Still missing is any statement of when the tool is invoked or its place relative to the many sibling tools, leaving the definition minimally adequate.

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% and actor_class has no enum, so the schema provides almost nothing. The description compensates by enumerating the valid values (maker, brand_owner, agency, distributor, retailer_media_team, auditor), which materially improves correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Who is asking?' and enumerates actor classes, which implies the tool determines the caller's actor identity. However, it never states a clear verb+resource ('resolve actor' is only in the name), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like check_eligibility or gate_transaction. Purpose is inferable but vague.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. The parenthetical 'auditor (read only)' hints at a usage condition but does not tell the agent when this tool should be selected versus others.

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