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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it requires authentication and specifies the nature of the returned statuses (under review, approved, denied). It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral details.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. Each of the four sentences adds distinct value: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and a necessary prerequisite (authentication). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to fully enumerate return values, but it still provides a clear summary. It covers the input source, the statuses, the use case, and authentication. The context is complete for a user deciding to invoke this tool among many siblings.

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%—both intake_id and bearer_token have clear descriptions. The description text itself adds minimal parameter-specific information, only reinforcing that intake_id is from a previous submission and that authentication is required. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'status of a previously submitted intake questionnaire.' It further lists possible statuses and the reviewing entity, distinguishing it from other status tools like consent_status and order_status. The mention of polling before order placement adds workflow context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to poll for provider review completion before proceeding to order placement.' This provides clear context and timing, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. It implies use after intake submission.

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