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

Annotations are sparse and somewhat counterintuitive (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false for a nominally getter tool), so the description must carry weight. It does disclose the availability gating ('once we have them') and the approval prerequisite, which is useful, but it does not say what is returned (links? URLs? an error?) or what happens when the certificate is missing or the registration is not approved.

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?

A single compact sentence with the precondition front-loaded, so there is no padding. The phrasing 'show Download buttons' is UI-centric and slightly indirect, but it is efficient overall.

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 and weak annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it says only that download buttons appear. An agent cannot tell whether the tool returns URLs, file references, a status flag, or an error when documents are not yet available — a significant gap for a document-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?

There is one required parameter, business_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is fully responsible for explaining it. The description never mentions business_id or whose business is being queried, leaving the sole parameter undocumented in both places.

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 the resource (CAC certificate and status report) and the precondition (approved registration), and the title clarifies the intent. But the verb is phrased as a UI action ('show Download buttons') rather than describing retrieval of documents, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like recheck_documents, request_documents, or refresh_cac_status.

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?

It gives an implied usage condition — only for an approved registration, and only 'once we have them' — which is genuine guidance. However, it never states what to do when those conditions are not met, nor does it point to the alternatives (recheck_documents to trigger availability, request_documents to obtain them).

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