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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read behavior is known. The description adds context about the hosted MCP endpoint and authentication requirements, but does not disclose return format, error scenarios, or state semantics beyond what 'state' implies.

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 a single, tight sentence that states the action and parameter usage without unnecessary verbiage. Every word 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?

While the description is adequate for a simple getter, it omits any details about the return value (what constitutes 'intake state'), and api_base_url is not mentioned. Without an output schema, this lack of context leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 75%, and the description reinforces the relationship between url and session_id/access_token, which is already partially described in the schema. It does not clarify api_base_url, and session_id lacks a schema description, so the description adds limited new meaning.

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 clearly states the tool fetches the current applicant intake state, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_case or open_intake, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like open_intake or get_case. The description only explains parameter combinations (url or session_id + access_token) for the hosted endpoint, not selection criteria.

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