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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds two meaningful behavioral details: it exposes only the status (not the raw claim token) and it is agency-mode only. These go beyond what annotations provide and are useful for safe invocation.

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 description is a single, tightly written sentence. It front-loads the access restriction ('Agency mode only') and then states the action and its security property. There is zero redundancy.

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 operation with one parameter and robust annotations, the description is sufficient. It clarifies the scope (one handoff) and the token-protection behavior. It does not specify return format, but with no output schema and simple status, that is not a critical 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%, so the single parameter handoff_id is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('inspect') and a clear resource ('handoff status'), and immediately distinguishes itself with 'Agency mode only' and 'without exposing the raw claim token.' This clearly separates it from generic status tools like get_app_status or get_job_status.

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?

The description implies agency-mode usage and that it is for handoff status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. Siblings include many status getters, and no exclusion or selection criteria are given.

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