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

With annotations present, the description adds genuine context beyond them: it discloses that despite the 'check' verb the call has a write side effect (confirming and recording an online POA signature), which explains readOnlyHint=false. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the key non-obvious behavioral trait is disclosed.

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 well-formed sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return fields, with the side-effect caveat placed last where it belongs. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned signals (status, POA signed, document needs, readyToPay, next steps). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, it is sufficient for correct invocation, though it omits any error/edge-case behavior.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics (including the GUID source). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns the status') and resource ('a new LEI application'), then enumerates the exact status values (draft, paid, processing, issued) plus the accompanying fields. An agent can tell precisely what this returns 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?

Usage is implied by 'status of a new LEI application' – it is for checking an in-flight registration. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., get_lei_record, get_renewal_payment_status) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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