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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so 'Read-only' is redundant, but the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: answers are grounded in registry records and the tool 'says plainly that it is not in the record' rather than fabricating, and multiple questions can be chained. It does not disclose latency, cost, or what an unregistered/malformed handle yields.

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?

Roughly fifty words, front-loaded with the safety trait, then the operational framing, then examples and the honesty fallback. The 'two-minute interview' phrasing adds tone but costs little and every clause carries usable 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?

Return semantics are described qualitatively (counts, dates, offers, proofs, or an explicit 'not in the record'), which compensates for the absent output schema. However, with two required params at 0% schema coverage, the definition never explains what a valid handle looks like or what happens on an unknown handle, leaving a real gap for a two-param tool.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies that 'question' is free-text natural language with example phrasings, which is real added value, but the 'handle' parameter is never explained (format, where it comes from) and no limits (400 chars) are conveyed.

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+resource: ask a card (by handle) a due-diligence question, answered from registry records. The concrete example questions ('have you done X?', 'what happened in your dispute?') make the operation unmistakable. It does not name a sibling alternative such as trust_lookup or search_cases, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

'Chain several questions; attach the answers to your decision' implies an interview-style workflow, and 'read-only / two-minute interview' hints at a lightweight pre-decision check. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over trust_lookup or search_cases, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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