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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as returning per-consent status and a proceed/no-proceed indication. It also notes the gating relationship with order_create and the authentication requirement. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds useful information (purpose, return values, gating behavior, authentication). No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema. The description covers the purpose, the gate behavior, return values, and authentication. The existence of an output schema makes detailed return format explanations unnecessary. The description is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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 100%, so both parameters (intake_id and bearer_token) are already documented. The description merely reiterates that authentication is required, which is already implied by the bearer_token parameter. Thus it adds no significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool checks consent completion status for a patient intake, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('consents'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consent_list, consent_submit, and consent_text by focusing on completion status and progression to ordering.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool, explicitly noting it is a gate before order_create and that order_create will reject if consents are incomplete. It implies this should be used prior to ordering, though it does not explicitly say when not to use alternative consent tools.

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