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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing a functional limitation: there is no public approval-status endpoint, so it reports the limitation rather than fabricating approval state. That is meaningful expectation-setting, though it does not cover response shape or failure behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately clarifying the limitation. No filler or redundancy. Slightly awkward phrasing ('signup status capability') keeps it from a 5.

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 simple read-only status check whose annotations cover safety, the description conveys the essential caveat about missing approval data. But with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, it leaves the agent without any sense of the return shape or the role of outputFormat, so it is only minimally complete.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter. It never mentions the required userId or the outputFormat enum, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap. A read-only status tool with two undocumented parameters warrants a low score here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return the current signup status capability') and, unusually, discloses that the tool cannot actually resolve approval state. That is clear enough to understand what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many signup-domain siblings (e.g. get_sulvo_revenue_onboarding_status, verify_sulvo_signup_ads_txt), preventing a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool exists to check signup status capability, and the note about the missing endpoint warns the agent not to expect approval state. No explicit 'use when' or routing to an alternative sibling is given, so this sits at the implied-usage level.

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