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. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the content of the report (tier, trial state, tool/field availability), which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the returned content, the second states the trigger. No filler, and the 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?

A parameterless, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does by enumerating what is reported. It stops short of describing format or how 'available fields' are surfaced, which is a small residual gap.

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 nothing for the description to document; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly does not invent inputs.

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 (report) and resource (this FirmLedger connection's capabilities) and enumerates exactly what is reported: access tier, auth/trial status, available tools and fields. No sibling tool does anything similar, so differentiation is implicit and clear.

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 a concrete trigger condition — 'Use when the user asks why something is locked' — which is exactly the diagnostic context an agent needs. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but no sibling tool overlaps, so the omission is minor.

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