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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with idempotentHint=true, and the description explains why: this produces a link the user must personally sign, constrained to directors/board members, followed by a status check. That actor-permission requirement and the human-in-the-loop flow are real context beyond the annotation flags, though nothing is said about link expiry or regeneration.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns first, then the actor constraint, then the next step. No filler and nothing buried.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a single well-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description supplies preconditions, actor requirements, and the follow-up call. The only omission is link lifetime/validity, which is minor for this kind of 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema description already documents it fully (GUID from start_lei_transfer or list_my_leis, explicitly not the 20-character LEI number) at 100% coverage. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 page where the user signs the transfer POA of an LEI'), names the returned artifact (signingUrl), and scopes it to 'a transfer waiting for its POA'. The 'transfer POA' wording cleanly separates it from the sibling get_limited_poa_signing_link without needing either 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?

Gives a clear precondition (transfer waiting for its POA) and an explicit post-action routing to check_transfer_status, plus the actor constraint that the user must be a director or board member. It never states when not to use it or names the limited-POA alternative, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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