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

Despite `readOnlyHint` and `idempotentHint` being present, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Gracefully degrades to `found=false, items=[]` on 404 / transport error' and notes the per-cohort nature of the checklist. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining failure modes and variability.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by return structure, usage context, and error behavior. Each sentence provides distinct value with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and rollup counts, and by noting the graceful degradation. It lacks detail on authentication prerequisites (agentBearer) and does not fully explain the 'cohort' concept, but overall it provides sufficient context for a read-only retrieval tool.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain parameters. It implicitly identifies `applicationId` as the lending application identifier, but `agentBearer` is left undefined. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions, leaving the optional auth parameter ambiguous.

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 tool 'Resolve[s] the per-cohort document upload checklist for a merchant's lending application' and specifies the return structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on document checklist items and rollup counts, a unique resource among the tool list. The verb 'Resolve' is somewhat indirect, but the details make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to surface upload progress for lender-agent consumers without re-implementing the document state machine,' giving a clear context for when to invoke. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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