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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint as true. The description reinforces these with 'Read-only and idempotent.' and adds new behavioral context: the exact return format (`{ permitOperations: string[] }`) and required authentication setup. This goes beyond the structured 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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives return type and usage recommendation, third covers prerequisites and traits. No redundant words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters, annotations covering safety, and the description providing purpose, return format, usage context, and prerequisites, the description is fully complete. An agent has all needed information to decide and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by detailing the return structure, which compensates for the lack of parameter information. Baseline 4 is 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 clearly states the verb 'Read', specifies the resource 'enabled permission operations (autoSettings.permitOperations)', and scopes to 'authenticated user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly labeling itself as read-only and idempotent, which contrasts with the many mutation tools in the sibling list.

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 description explicitly advises to use this tool 'before mutating auto-sell or auto-buy rules to confirm the action is allowed'. It also lists prerequisites ('requires a signature session and mcp-session-id'). While it doesn't specify when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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