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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: no API key is needed, and the hosted endpoint requires including the same intake credential in later intake calls. This enriches the safety profile with auth and state-handling details; no contradiction.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the core read operation, the auth requirement, and the hosted endpoint credential practice. The description is front-loaded and 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers access modes, auth requirements, and endpoint-specific behavior, making it sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool. It could still explicitly mention return shape or differentiate itself from get_intake_state, but overall it is complete enough given the annotations and schema.

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 75%, with useful descriptions for url, access_token, and api_base_url. The description compensates by explaining the relationship between session_id and access_token, repeating the no-API-key requirement, and adding hosted-vs-local override context. The undocumented session_id is partially clarified by the phrase 'session_id plus access_token'.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an applicant intake', and immediately clarifies the two access modes (signed URL or session_id plus access_token). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_intake_session or submit_intake.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use the tool (reading an intake) and gives important context: no Klarefi API key is required, and on the hosted endpoint the same intake credential should be included in later calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so a 4 rather than 5.

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