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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it exceptionally well. It explicitly warns that the tool returns no record, that it never asserts what was true of the carrier, that a filing is not coverage in force, and that an empty source is not a negative finding unless the answer says the absence is provable. These caveats prevent major misinterpretations of the result.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the action and outcome, and the following three sentences each add a distinct, necessary caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The behavioral caveats are thorough, but there is no output schema and no parameter-level descriptions, so the agent is missing the expected date format, docket format, and any concrete example. The description explains what the answer communicates but not the exact shape or syntax needed to make the call.

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 must explain both parameters, but it only restates their basic meaning: 'docket number' and 'as-of date'. It provides no format, validation, allowed values, or examples for either string parameter. An agent still lacks the syntax needed to reliably construct a valid input.

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 names a specific action ('qualify') and a specific resource (a docket number plus an as-of date), and states what the result covers: archive capability, source holdings, and what a purchased record could establish. It also clarifies that it returns no record row, which helps distinguish it from carrier_record. However, it does not explicitly explain which sibling to choose for what purpose.

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 sentence says when to use this tool versus carrier_record, coverage, specimen, or verify, nor does it name any alternative. The phrase 'whether this archive can answer for them' implies a qualification-before-purchase use case, but that is only implicit. This is effectively no guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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