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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real substance beyond that: it explains what the result encodes (allow / require approval / refuse per AI use) and decodes the do_not_train=true semantics, which the agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return meaning, then the call trigger — no filler sentences. The do_not_train clause is wedged mid-sentence and slightly interrupts flow, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of indicating what comes back (per-use permission statuses), and the single parameter is fully specified. It stops short of describing error behavior for an unregistered ID or the granularity of the returned use categories.

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% — the schema only carries minLength/maxLength on rights_id. The description compensates by giving the concrete ID format BR-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX, which is exactly the missing semantic an agent needs to supply a valid value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a person or character is registered with Rightis by rights_id'. The by-ID framing distinguishes it from the sibling rights_search, so an agent can route between lookup and search without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this before generating a likeness, voice or persona of a real person.' That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative or when-not condition (e.g., when rights_search or registry_info is the better call for a non-ID lookup).

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