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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive semantics, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: results are evidence records with provenance and verification status, and it explicitly disclaims that this implies liveness, maintenance, or working software — a useful guard against misuse as a health check.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the scope disclaimer, then how to invoke. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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, the description helpfully characterizes the returned fields (identifiers, provenance, verification). It leaves unaddressed what happens with conflicting slug/value inputs, error behavior for unknown slugs, or result volume limits.

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 100%, so each of slug, value, and platform is already documented. The description adds the relational semantics the schema omits: these are alternative lookup paths ('by slug, or by an identifier you already have'), which matters given zero required parameters and no schema-level either/or constraint.

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: return the external identifiers PulseGate holds for one project, plus provenance and verification status per identifier. Scoping to 'one project' implicitly distinguishes it from search_catalog, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 clear invocation context: 'Look up by slug, or by an identifier you already have,' which covers both entry paths an agent is likely to have. It does not state when to prefer a sibling (e.g. list_identifier_platforms or search_catalog) or when not to use it.

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