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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that the call is free, requires Pro plan or higher, and wraps GET /api/v2/hook-studio/hooks, plus that results carry claims data. It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

One compact sentence plus endpoint parenthetical, with the read-only tag and the resource scope front-loaded. The '[read-only]' prefix and endpoint wrapper partly duplicate annotations, but nothing is wasted and the plan note 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?

For a two-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers resource, filtering, cost, plan gating and return content (claims result). Missing only default behavior (e.g., what happens when status is omitted) and pagination, which are minor.

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 50%: brandId is documented in the schema while status only has an enum. The description compensates partly by naming the status filter and enumerating its allowed values, and by framing the resource as 'the brand's hook bank', implying brandId scoping. It adds little beyond what the enum and schema already convey.

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 a specific verb and resource ('The brand's hook bank' with status filtering) and notes the payload includes each hook's claims result, which distinguishes it from siblings like hooks_generate and hooks_update by name alone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied: read the hook bank, optionally narrowing by status (draft, approved, retired). The plan prerequisite ('Needs the Pro plan or higher') is useful gating context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over hooks_generate or hooks_update, or preconditions beyond the plan.

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