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

Annotations already establish readability, idempotence, and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by disclosing that direct actions are gated on this compatibility/royalty state, which is meaningful domain behavior beyond the annotation metadata.

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 short sentences cover the core purpose and the important behavioral consequence with no filler. The active read action is stated first, and the disabling consequence is given after, which is a logical and efficient structure.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent status tool, the description is complete. The presence of an output schema means the return structure is already available to the agent, and the description supplies the essential domain gate context without requiring more.

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 and the input schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the no-parameter baseline makes this appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource ('TokenWorks/FWA compatibility and royalty gate'), and the consequence of that gate. This makes the tool's role easy to distinguish from the many other get_* tools, which concern distinct domains such as marketplaces, agents, and census status.

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 second sentence implies the tool is the place to check whether direct actions are currently allowed, since they stay disabled until the gate passes. No alternative or explicit 'use when' condition is named, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route to this tool for a pre-check.

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