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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. However, it adds a useful behavioral note: 'Safe to expose to agents,' implying read-only and non-sensitive. It does not disclose aggregation logic or whether the status is cached, but annotations cover the main safety profile. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 only two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is stated first, followed by a brief safety note. It is concise and front-loaded, with words earning their place. It could be slightly more detailed but remains efficient.

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?

The tool takes a single parameter, has full schema coverage, read-only annotations, and an output schema (though not shown here). The description is adequate for a simple aggregation read, but it does not mention the shape or meaning of the returned status (e.g., possible status values). Given the annotations already cover safety and the parameter is self-explanatory, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth on the return value semantics.

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 input schema documents the userId parameter as a 'UUID value wrapper' with 100% coveragenis. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is clearhol on the parameter's format and type, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (aggregates) and resource (user's inquiries into a single app-level KYC status). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from typical per-inquiry KYC tools, but does not name specific siblings. The name itself is also descriptive, so the description adds enough clarity for agent selection.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context such as 'use when you need a high-level KYC status across all inquiries' or exclude cases where detailed inquiry-level data is needed. The statement 'Safe to expose to agents' hints at safety but does not clarify usage scenarios.

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