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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds non-annotation context: output contents, cryptographic attestation via a 'post-quantum signed settlement receipt', a verification URL, and a per-call price. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only single-parameter tool this is solid supplemental context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: use case, return summary, illustrative interpretation example, attestation/verification, and pricing. The most decision-relevant guidance is front-loaded before supporting details.

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, one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies enough to select and invoke it: when to use it, what output to expect, an example interpretation, cost, and verification path. With no output schema, the prose description of returned aggregates compensates well.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter, including an example ('owner slug or id, e.g. illinois-dot'). The description reinforces that the owner is a construction owner but adds no parameter syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific use case—'assessing a construction owner's claims history'—and states concrete outputs: aggregate finding counts by defect family and outcome, decisions in the corpus, and days and dollars claimed versus awarded. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_intel_contractor_profile and get_intel_findings_search by targeting owner-side claims rather than contractor or general finding search.

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 gives an explicit context ('before bidding a contract or negotiating a change order') that tells an agent when to use it. It does not mention when-not-to-use conditions or explicitly route to an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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