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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds material context on top: IP addresses are never returned, a 'found false' result means no consent record exists, and history is capped at 50 entries newest-first. That privacy guarantee and empty-result semantics are exactly the behavioral traits structured fields cannot convey.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and every clause about history ordering, IP exclusion, and the false-result case earns its place. It does, however, spend a long enumeration on returned fields (exact wording, form page, form time, submission id) that duplicates the existing output schema, and 'Read-only' repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies what is left: the privacy exclusion, the not-found semantics, and the history cap. The only residual gap is the undocumented business_id, which is minor against an otherwise complete definition.

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 50%: 'phone' is documented (E.164 preferred) while 'business_id' is bare. The description implies business scoping ('at a business') and single-number scope ('one phone number'), but adds no format, ID source, or constraint detail beyond that, so it neither compensates for the undocumented parameter nor falls below the baseline for moderate coverage.

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 ('Read the consent proof for one phone number at a business') and enumerates the channel scope (service texts, marketing texts, calls, WhatsApp). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation siblings record_email_consent and revoke_email_consent, which write consent rather than retrieve proof of it.

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 an explicit use case — 'answer a carrier or customer asking how someone opted in' — which tells the agent the situation that selects this tool. It stops short of naming a when-not-to-use condition or an alternative tool for other consent questions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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