MilanAura Authority Check

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavior: the tool waits up to about 40 seconds, may need to be called again if still running, each result can be retrieved only once, and results are discarded after 10 minutes. These are important operational constraints that an agent would not know from the annotations alone.

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 three front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds distinct and necessary information about initialization source, timing/polling, and retrieval lifetime.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not explain what the returned result contains, which leaves a minor gap. However, it fully covers the retrieval lifecycle, polling behavior, and timing constraints needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents check_id fully, including its pattern and that it comes from run_authority_check. The description adds only that the same check_id should be reused when polling, which is mildly useful but does not add much beyond the schema's existing explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the result of an Authority Check previously started with run_authority_check. This clearly distinguishes it from its sibling run_authority_check, which starts the check rather than retrieving the result.

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?

It explicitly says to call this after run_authority_check and to call it again with the same check_id if the check is still running. The polling condition and reuse of check_id give the agent clear operational guidance.

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

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: latency (one to three minutes), the async/polling contract with a check_id, the display instruction, language support, and a privacy guarantee that profile text is not stored. These are behaviors the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations cannot convey, and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does, then the return payload, then the polling fallback, then the privacy note. Every sentence carries operational information; nothing is padding.

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 compensates by listing the five result components the agent will receive, and it explains the multi-step completion path. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and handle its result is missing.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that profile_text is the core input and that output language follows the person's writing, but adds no format or constraint details beyond that.

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 ("Runs a free Authority Check ... on a professional's public profile") and enumerates what the output contains. It also names the sibling tool get_authority_check_result, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Clearly says to call get_authority_check_result with the returned check_id when the result isn't ready, and to show the result to the user as returned. It does not state when not to run a check or what input quality is required, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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