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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the authorization boundary that shapes the result set ('at least a viewer'), which an agent needs to interpret what comes back.

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 sentences, benefit and scope front-loaded, no filler. The trailing parenthetical is awkward enough to slightly weaken an otherwise tight structure.

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-value detail is not required here, and the description covers audience, scope and the one meaningful parameter conditional. Only the ambiguous tenant_id parenthetical keeps it from being fully self-sufficient at the point of call.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does explain tenant_id's effect ('list one tenant's consents only'), but the clarifying parenthetical ('a caller of several tenants must') is grammatically incomplete and leaves the actual constraint ambiguous, and authorization is not addressed.

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 gives a precise verb and resource and additionally defines the exact result scope: the caller's own consents plus tenant-scope consents for tenants where the caller is at least a viewer. That level of specificity clearly separates it from the write-side sibling record_consent.

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?

It states a concrete usage trigger ('Call this to check which legal documents have already been accepted before asking again') and a conditional for the optional parameter. It stops short of naming the complementary alternative (record_consent) explicitly, but the context for when to invoke it is unambiguous.

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