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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the read-only verification nature, the specific data returned, and explicitly states it returns no PHI. It does not cover failure modes, rate limits, or authorization requirements, but those are less critical for a simple one-input verification lookup.

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place: purpose and return values first, then when to use, then accepted input formats, then the privacy boundary. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: the purpose, the input format, the returned fields, and the privacy guarantee. The only minor gap is that explicit behavior for invalid or revoked codes is not stated directly.

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 fully describes the single parameter with type, length constraints, and format examples, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description's narrative repeats the UUID/short Document ID distinction rather than adding new semantic information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific operation ('Verify the authenticity of a SickSlip doctor's note'), the resource, and the mechanism ('by its verification code'), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools about pricing, service tiers, state availability, and NPI lookup.

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?

The description provides an explicit 'Use this when' section with concrete personas (HR person, manager, patient) and intents: confirming a note is real, checking issued dates, absence windows, and revocation/modification status. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the sibling tools are so clearly distinct that no real ambiguity remains.

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