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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the token acts as a credential because ids leak via URLs/chat logs, wrong-or-missing tokens are indistinguishable from unknown ids (no enumeration oracle), and no auth is required. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the credential requirement, then the security rationale, then args and return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information; the opening 'Where one application stands' is slightly indirect but quickly grounded.

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, yet the description enumerates the return fields (ok, found, application?, cohort), states the auth requirement, and documents the security semantics of failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains why both parameters are jointly required and frames claim_token as a credential rather than a plain identifier. It does not add format/syntax detail beyond the sbc_/sb_ prefixes in the schema.

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 ('Where one application stands', checked against the spatial-beta application concept) and clearly differs from the sibling write tools ic_spatial_beta_apply and ic_spatial_beta_program by being a read/status lookup. An agent can identify the tool's role 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?

Gives clear conditions for use: BOTH application_id and claim_token from submission are required, and it explains that an id alone yields only public slot counts. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so routing relies on inference, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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