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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which is counterintuitive given the '_read' name; the description usefully resolves that by disclosing it 'may save verification or revoke invalid authority.' This is real added context about mutation and potential authority loss, though it doesn't say what exactly gets revoked or how to recover.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the mutation warning is retained rather than dropped. The capitalized 'BOTH' is an unexplained flourish that costs a bit of clarity but not length.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent-looking 'read' tool, the description leaves 'BOTH revisions' undefined and gives no trigger conditions for when verification is saved or authority revoked — an agent cannot predict whether calling it will mutate state.

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% and both required parameters (agent_id, provider enum) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only indirect meaning, tying 'resources and revisions' to the provider parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 verb+resource is identifiable ('Reports authorized resources'), and the side-effect clause clarifies it is more than a pure read. But 'BOTH revisions' is cryptic and never explained, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like provider_status, github_resources_select, or linear_resources_select.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The clause 'may save verification or revoke invalid authority' hints at side effects but doesn't say under what conditions an agent should reach for this tool versus provider_status or the provider-specific *_resources_select tools.

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