Get complimentary access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the required OAuth scope complimentary_access:read. The only weak point is the vague "Reads account data" phrasing.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding. The auth-scope line earns its place, though "Reads account data" is filler that adds little.

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 4-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the auth requirement is the key missing piece and it is present. However, the description never clarifies what the returned resource represents or how it relates to its list sibling, leaving a gap.

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%, with publication_id, complimentary_access_id, expand, and account all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter format or semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 essentially restates the tool name and title ("Get complimentary access") without explaining what a complimentary access record is or how it differs from the sibling list_complimentary_access. "Reads account data" is vague and arguably inaccurate for a single-resource fetch, adding no distinguishing detail.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_complimentary_access or any other sibling. The only conditional statement concerns OAuth scoping, not tool selection, so an agent gets no routing help.

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