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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds that these are grantable permissions scoped to an application, which is useful context, but 'Basis Theory: GET /permissions' merely restates. No pagination or return-shape detail.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The trailing API endpoint reference is low-value filler but the rest is tight with no padding.

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?

A simple read-only list tool with a single fully documented optional parameter and annotations covering the safety profile. The description is adequate; only return format/pagination are unspecified, which is minor here and partly excused by the trivial 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents application_type as 'Only permissions valid for this application type.' The description's 'optionally for one application type' reinforces optionality and filtering but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the permissions' with the added scope that they are permissions grantable to an application. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_roles or list_applications, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

'optionally for one application type' implies when the lone parameter is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisite guidance. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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