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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the possible return statuses and noting that it requires authentication. It frames the tool as a polling mechanism, which implies it can be called repeatedly without side effects.

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 four sentences of direct, functional prose with no redundant filler. It front-loads the primary action and outcome, then adds usage context and an auth requirement.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and prerequisites. It does not detail error handling, but that is not required given the output schema exists.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (intake_id and bearer_token), including where intake_id comes from. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('current status of a previously submitted intake questionnaire') and enumerates possible outcomes (under review, approved, denied). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like intake_submit and intake_questions.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to poll for provider review completion before proceeding to order placement.' This provides clear context for the use case, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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