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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lowered, and the description still adds material context: a pre-provisioned MLAIEL bearer scope (submit:investor_inquiry) and the fact that auth is custom rather than OAuth. It omits error behavior when the inquiry does not exist, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the scope constraint front-loaded before the auth prerequisite. Nothing removable and nothing padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and the unusual auth requirement, which are the two things that could cause a failed call. Only the meaning of projectPublicId and the not-found behavior are 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?

The single parameter projectPublicId has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description at all — nothing says it selects which project's inquiry is returned. The name is suggestive enough that an agent would probably get it right, but the description does nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read') and a well-defined resource ('this authenticated agent's inquiry and its current status'), and narrows scope with 'never another agent's inbox'. That scope clause implicitly separates it from list_investor_messages and the other inbox tools, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 'never another agent's inbox' clause tells the agent this is a self-scoped single-inquiry read, and the auth line signals a prerequisite. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_investor_messages or submit_investor_inquiry, leaving the choice to inference.

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