list_available_entitlements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of what is returned (per-entitlement availability and required verification), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, or read-only guarantees. A 'list' verb implies a safe read, but the disclosure is partial.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource. The parenthetical definition and the three output facets are packed efficiently, though the trailing clauses make it slightly heavy to parse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the three things returned per entitlement (existence, current availability, verification needed). For a single-param read tool this is close to sufficient; only pagination and auth context are absent.

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?

There is one parameter (customerId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (entitlements), defines the resource inline (products and payment rails) with a concrete example ('aed_local'), and narrows scope to entitlements the customer 'has not applied for yet.' This scope effectively distinguishes it from request_entitlements and submit_entitlement_requirements, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The phrase 'has not applied for yet' hints that this is a pre-request discovery step relative to request_entitlements, but the agent must infer that; nothing tells it whether to call this first or what to do with the results.

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