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

Adds genuinely non-derived context beyond the annotations: no API key is required, and any party can verify a report shown to them. The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world nature, so the auth/access disclosure is the value-add here.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The no-key access note and the use case each earn their place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent both what it verifies and what it returns ('see what it concluded'). Slightly thin on what a failed verification looks like versus a valid one, but adequate overall.

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% and the single report_id parameter is documented with a concrete example format in the schema. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: verify that a report id refers to a real screening and retrieve its conclusion. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the similarly-named sibling get_screening, which an agent might reasonably pick for the same intent.

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 a concrete usage context (checking someone else's claim of 'already cleared') and explains the caller's situation, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming when to use get_screening or list_screenings instead, so no explicit alternative routing.

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