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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive status, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the no-intake behavior ('unavailable rather than an error') and the foreign-incorporation signal that terminates an application. It does not describe the shape or size of the hydrated payload.

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 the core action, and every clause earns its place: the no-intake behavior and the foreign-incorporation consequence are both actionable details. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values, and it usefully highlights the one result that matters most (foreign incorporation ends the application). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, this is nearly complete, missing only the explicit write-sibling comparison.

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?

There is one required parameter (companyId, a UUID value wrapper) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 says exactly what the tool does: it previews what the company's proof-of-company intake would carry onto an application, and adds scope detail ('without writing') that distinguishes it from the write-capable sibling banking_hydrate_from_equity_intake. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Useful context: a caller can check this 'before collecting anything', and the no-intake case returns 'unavailable rather than an error', which tells the agent how to handle that branch. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of banking_hydrate_from_equity_intake when you only want to inspect'.

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