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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only, requires a Bearer token, and that promotion is a separate POST endpoint, but it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or the response structure beyond the verdict values.

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 compact sentences with the verdict values front-loaded, followed by read-only and auth context. There is no wasted text.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, auth, possible verdicts, and the promotion alternative. It remains incomplete on parameter formats and response details, which matters given 0% schema description coverage.

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 compensate for both parameters. It only conceptually maps provider to 'candidate provider' and task_type to 'task type'; it does not explain expected formats, valid values, or whether provider is an ID or name.

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 resource and outcome: a promotion-gate verdict for a candidate provider on a task type, including the possible verdict values. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings bridge_account_status and bridge_scoreboard.

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 implies the tool is for checking a promotion verdict and explicitly notes that promotion itself happens via POST /promote, which is useful when-not guidance for the mutation action. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling status or scoreboard tools.

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