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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context beyond them: authentication is required, where to obtain the key, and that the returned status is 'live' (current, not cached). It does not cover error behavior for an unknown order_id.

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 purpose and followed by the authentication requirement. Dense but each clause (returned fields, ID format, key prefix, sign-up URL) carries information the caller needs.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (compliance status, document count, officer remarks, Stage 2 upload URL), and authentication is fully covered. Only edge-case behavior and any rate/refresh semantics are unstated, which is a minor gap for a read-only status check.

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 coverage is 100%, so both order_id and api_key already carry their own descriptions including the key URL and example format. The description's mention of order_id format and login key largely restates the schema, adding no new syntax or constraints.

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?

Names a specific verb (check) plus the exact resource (Hong Kong corporate bank account application status) and enumerates the returned data points. An agent can distinguish it from submit_bank_account_application and check_filing_order_status without opening any schema.

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?

Makes the precondition explicit — a submitted application with a BK-YYYYMMDD-XXXXXX reference and an authenticated session via an hkq_live_ key. It does not name an alternative tool for non-bank filing orders or state what to do when the order doesn't exist, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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