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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: an authentication requirement ("Needs the private status_token"), the full enumeration of lifecycle states needed to interpret results, and the semantic rule that a consultation counts only when confirmed.

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 trigger is front-loaded, followed by return contents, credential requirement, and a clarifying caveat — each sentence earns its place. The 10-value parenthetical is long but high-value for interpreting output, so it is justified rather than padding.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete: it states the trigger, the auth need, return fields, and a domain caveat. The one gap is the unresolved tension over whether status_token is truly mandatory versus optional as the schema declares.

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 50%: status_token is documented in the schema, while referral_id has only a pattern and no prose. The description flags that status_token is 'private' and needed, which adds meaning, but it never explains referral_id and its 'Needs the status_token' phrasing sits awkwardly against a schema where only referral_id is required.

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 names a specific retrieval action on a specific resource ('what happened with an introduction') and enumerates the lifecycle_state values returned, which makes it unmistakably distinct from the sibling write tool request_attorney_introduction. An agent can identify the tool's function without opening the 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?

"Use when the user asks what happened with an introduction" gives a clear trigger condition tied to user intent. It does not, however, name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g. use request_attorney_introduction to create, or what to do if the token was lost), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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