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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the domain coverage (discovery, promotion, evidence, payment) and 'machine-facing' scope, but it does not disclose what the returned capability description actually contains or how it is structured. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates the relevant domains. Although the phrasing is dense, it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter discovery tool.

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?

The tool is simple and annotations cover its safety profile well, but no output schema exists and the description does not explain what the response will look like. The word 'boundaries' is never concretely defined, leaving some ambiguity about the exact information an agent will receive.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden; the baseline is 4. The description's mention of specific boundary domains adds useful context even though no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Describe') and identifies the resource: EventWave machine-facing boundaries across discovery, promotion, evidence, and payment. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools, which handle specific offers, statuses, checkouts, and handoffs; however, 'boundaries' is somewhat abstract and could be more concrete.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus its siblings. The description only implies that it provides capability/boundary information, but it never states 'call this before exploring other EventWave tools' or excludes cases where the other tools should be used instead.

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