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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context by disclosing the three things returned (mode, permission level, standing rules) and the fact that it is a gating prerequisite for professional writing. It stops short of describing structure or size of the returned rules.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the call-to-action and the exception handling. Every clause carries distinct information: status, level options, rules source, call timing, and overflow behavior.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only annotations, this is exactly the amount of description needed: it explains what comes back, when to call it, and what to do with the result. An agent can invoke and act on it without further information.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly spends no space on inputs and instead invests in output meaning.

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 the specific resource and spells out its contents: professional-mode status (on/off), the permitted action level (off, draft, send), and the user's standing rules verbatim. The 'professional' qualifier implicitly separates it from the personal read_profile sibling, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it before writing professionally.' It also states the conditional follow-up behavior when a message exceeds the rules (make it a draft and explain why), which routes the agent correctly between sending and drafting. Nothing is left to inference.

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