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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description goes further by disclosing the return content (label in every language plus its meaning) and the no-match fallback (lists known statuses). With no output schema, this return-value disclosure is genuinely useful, though matching semantics such as case or whitespace tolerance are left unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then accepted input forms with examples, then fallback behavior. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it accepts in both naming conventions, what it returns, and what happens on a miss. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: it explains that the single parameter accepts a display label in any Refapp language or an internal name, with concrete examples of each. It does not clarify whether matching is exact, case-insensitive, or accent-sensitive, which matters for a free-text lookup.

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: explain a status shown in Refapp for a candidate, project or background check. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can distinguish it from explain_concept or search_help without opening any 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 context for when the tool applies (you have a status string seen in the app) and enumerates acceptable input forms via two examples. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer explain_concept or search_help instead, so it lacks true exclusion guidance.

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