Grant entitlement to customer

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive and idempotent, yet the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: access auto-expires, it is revocable via a named sibling, the customer is auto-created if new, and a repeat grant with the same end date is a no-op.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then consequences, then idempotency. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; none is filler.

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?

With a fully described schema and annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: side effects, reversibility, and repeat-call behavior.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the accepted expires_at formats. The description only restates expires_at's role as the expiry boundary and adds the auto-creation side effect, which is behavioral rather than parameter-level detail.

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 (grants) plus resource (time-limited entitlement access) and scope (until expires_at). It also names the sibling that reverses it, revoke-customer-entitlement, so an agent can distinguish the pair without opening either schema.

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 clear use context ('for support or goodwill') and points to the alternative verb for undoing the grant. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., versus a purchased subscription flow), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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