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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the tool cannot mutate proof state, describes what it returns, and warns against misinterpreting proof state as full setup. This directly aids the agent in acting correctly without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, and ends with a concise critical caution. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool with no required parameters and an output schema provided, the description adequately covers purpose, return contents, and interpretation caveats. It does not mention potential errors or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing. Slight deduction for not addressing error conditions, which are often relevant in practice.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (business_id, oauth_transaction_id, activation_session_id, origin_conversation_id, receipt_idempotency_key) is already documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics; it only adds general behavioral context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter load.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('persisted proof-first activation status for one accessible business'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_setup_recovery_status or get_phone_system_status by specifying the return contents (masked evidence, next action, unlock state). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

The description gives explicit context on how to interpret results ('do not report the line as live/working on the strength of proof state alone') and notes a limitation ('It cannot assert or advance proof'). However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling; the usage guidance is implicit rather than comparative.

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