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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds two facts the agent cannot get from structured data: the read-only nature is a deliberate assistant limitation rather than just a hint, and the tool is plan-gated on Scale. It doesn't mention pagination defaults or authorization scope, which the schema partially covers.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it deliberately doesn't do, and what it costs to access. Nothing is padded and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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-required-parameter read tool with a rich, fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, plan gating, and the approval exclusion. The only marginal gap is that it doesn't hint at what an award record contains or how reconciliation should interpret status values, but that is minor without an output 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six filters (page, limit, status, teamId, periodKey, affiliateId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list bonus awards) plus the scope 'across all teams' and a use case (reconciliation). It doesn't need to differentiate from a close sibling because no other award-related tool exists, though it also doesn't position itself against list_payouts or list_team_goals which could cause confusion about which financial data lives where.

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?

Gives clear context for calling it (reconciliation), an explicit exclusion ('approving awards is deliberately not available to assistants'), and a hard prerequisite ('Requires the Scale plan'). No alternative tool is named for award mutation, but the exclusion effectively tells the agent not to attempt approval.

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