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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: the response is staged (status first, result only after completion) and the result includes a signed evidence package link. It does not mention what happens for an unknown or malformed check id, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the one procedural instruction that matters. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 takes on the job of describing return values and does so by listing status, headline, counts, depth, findings and the evidence link. For a single-parameter read tool that is nearly complete; only the volume or shape of findings and whether repeated calls are expected while running are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the single parameter, and it does by tying check_id to the value returned by submit_claim_bundle — provenance the bare pattern ^chk_[0-9a-f]{32}$ cannot convey. It does not restate the format, which is fine since the pattern already covers it, but no error semantics for a stale or malformed id are given.

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?

Names a specific resource (a Sternly check) and states the exact information returned, enumerating the status vocabulary (running, done, failed) and the result fields (headline, counts, depth, findings, evidence link). It also distinguishes itself from submit_claim_bundle by naming it as the source of the id, so an agent can separate the read step from the submit step without opening either schema.

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 gives clear operational context: call this with the check id that submit_claim_bundle returned, and expect a result only once the status is done. That establishes the typical call sequence. It stops short of explicit exclusions or polling guidance (e.g. whether to re-call while running), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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