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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds dataset scope (18,660+ records, all 50 states, the represented organizations), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or what happens when no filters are supplied — real concerns for a registry query returning thousands of rows.

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 dense sentences with no filler, and the registry scope is front-loaded before the two lookup capabilities. The parenthetical organization list is slightly bulky but earns its place by showing coverage breadth.

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 four-optional-filter registry lookup with no output schema, the description should say what a match returns (representative record? accreditation status? POA code mapping?) and how multi-filter or zero-filter calls behave. It establishes data provenance well but leaves the response shape and query behavior unstated.

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 the schema already documents all four filters with examples, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal semantic value by framing registration_number as something to validate and POA codes as something to resolve, and it never mentions a poa_code input at all — that concept appears only as an output, which the agent must infer.

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?

Names a specific verb (Query) and a precisely scoped resource (official VA OGC nationwide accreditation registry of 18,660+ recognized claims representatives across all 50 states), then adds two concrete capabilities: resolving 3-character VA POA codes and validating accreditation registration numbers. That specificity separates it cleanly from the mostly audit-oriented siblings.

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 by the described capabilities (verify a registration number, resolve a POA code, find representatives by city/state/organization). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the obvious alternative generate_vso_referral, and no guidance on whether calling with zero filters is permitted or sensible given all four parameters are optional.

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