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

Annotations only give generic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=true), so the description carries real weight and does so well: it discloses that despite the "check" framing the tool writes, confirming and recording an online POA signature with the signing service. It does not cover auth requirements or error/edge behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and no wasted framing. The clause "whether it must be renewed with the transfer and what to do next" is slightly loose but still earns its place by previewing the return payload.

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, the description usefully previews what comes back (status values, renewal requirement, next steps) and flags the signature-recording side effect. For a single-parameter tool with annotations present, this is nearly complete, missing only failure/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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents leiId (GUID from start_lei_transfer or list_my_leis, not the 20-character LEI number). The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 and resource ("Returns the status of an LEI transfer") and enumerates the possible states (awaiting_poa, processing, completed, rejected). The resource word "transfer" cleanly separates it from siblings like check_registration_status and check_concordium_verification_status without the agent opening any 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 only implied by the name and the returned statuses; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus siblings such as get_renewal_payment_status or check_registration_status. "What to do next" describes a return value, not invocation guidance.

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