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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds materially new context they do not: the operation is paid, it is asynchronous, and the caller must poll a separate tool for terminal status. Cost disclosure and the async+polling contract are exactly the kind of traits annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: what the call is and costs, the idempotency contract, the mode default, and the required follow-up. The most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description correctly points to the polling tool for terminal status. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly, including cost and prerequisite context.

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 baseline is 3. The description's guidance on idempotency_key reuse and omitting mode largely restates what the schema already documents ('Reuse only for this exact pack, document, and mode' / 'normally omit this'), adding little beyond the structured fields.

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 a document against a query-ready pack) plus the key behavioral traits (paid, asynchronous). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_verification_status as the polling companion, so an agent can route between this and the status tool 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?

Gives clear operational guidance: one unique idempotency_key reused only for exact retries, omit mode to inherit the pack's mode, and poll get_verification_status until terminal=true. The prerequisite 'query-ready pack' is implied as a gating condition, but there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., behavior against an unbuilt pack).

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