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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description's 'Changes nothing' reinforces the read-only profile but adds essentially no behavioral context beyond what the annotations state, such as whether the confirmation expires or what the card displays.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the action, but the middle clause ('named in Capital Company's reply on Capital Company's card') is repetitive and awkward, slowing comprehension without adding precision.

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 simple read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the relationship to capital_company_confirm unstated, which an agent would benefit from given the crowded sibling set.

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% for the single confirmationId parameter, and its schema description mirrors the tool description. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema already documents, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Shows ... a Confirmation') and clarifies scope by saying the user confirms or declines it themselves, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling capital_company_confirm. The phrasing 'named in Capital Company's reply on Capital Company's card' is convoluted but the core action is identifiable.

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?

Usage is only implied: by saying the user confirms/declines the confirmation themselves, it suggests this is the display step preceding an actual confirm/decline. No explicit when-to-use rule or direct reference to the sibling capital_company_confirm is given.

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