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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent and closed-world, and the description supplies the reason implicitly by revealing that a referral_id is minted and consumed by report_outcome. The 7-day expiry is useful behavioral context the annotations cannot express; it stops short of explaining what happens on expiry or re-calls.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the return payload front-loaded and the follow-up action second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description sketches the response contents (evidence, connection details, referral_id) plus the required next step, which is enough for a 1-param lookup. Minor gaps remain around failure modes when the id is unknown or the referral has expired.

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 100% and the single 'id' param already documents the 'svc_...'/'cand_...' formats, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is this high.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get_service' → full evidence and connection details for one service) and discloses an extra return element, the referral_id. It is clearly distinct from the search_services sibling referenced in the schema, though no sibling is named in the description itself.

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?

Gives explicit downstream workflow: take the referral_id to report_outcome after using the service, with a stated 7-day validity window. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_report or get_history, 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.