ASC SBP Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: required Finance-role credentials (asc_finance_key_id, asc_finance_key_filepath, asc_vendor_number) and the 403 error behavior, which an agent needs to pre-flight the call.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then clearly delimited 'Use when' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence carries information: the ratio heuristic, the auth requirement, the failure behavior, and the return shape.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the shape ({ok, ratio, program, report_date}). With auth prerequisites, error behavior, and usage trigger all present, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so days_back and report_date are fully documented in the schema. The description only implies 'latest report' semantics and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 and resource ('Prove Small Business Program status from the latest subscription sales report') plus the discriminating detail (0.85 SBP vs 0.70 standard ratio). An agent can distinguish it from the other asc_* siblings such as asc_token_check or asc_list_apps at a glance.

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?

'Use when: confirming the 15% commission' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the description states the Finance-role key prerequisites and the 403 failure mode. It does not name an alternative tool, but no obvious sibling competes for this purpose, so the guidance is clear without exclusions.

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