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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it specifies the returned envelope fields (status, lending tier, cohort, partner ref, decision timestamps, rejection reason) and explicitly states graceful degradation to `found=false` on 404/transport error. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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, each adding distinct value: purpose, return/use case, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant or promotional language.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return value with the envelope fields. It also covers error handling, usage context, and the required parameter. For a single-parameter read tool with readOnly annotations, this is complete and self-contained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying the purpose of the key parameter: 'by applicationId.' However, it doesn't mention the optional `agentBearer` parameter at all, leaving its meaning to inference. The main parameter is well-addressed, but the second parameter is ignored, giving it below full marks.

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's verb and resource: 'Resolve the current status of a merchant's lending application by applicationId.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it returns the 'canonical envelope' and is used for surfacing application progress without re-implementing the state machine, which differentiates it from listing or history tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Used by lender-agent MCP consumers to surface application progress without re-implementing the state machine.' This implies it's the canonical single-application status lookup, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions like sibling tools for listing or history.

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