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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: read-only, writes/signs/executes nothing, fail-closed status semantics (OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE, never made-up data), tenant comes from the setting never an argument, and a scope disclaimer that a readout is not a compliance finding. The only omission is what determines current vs unbound, which the agent must infer from the supplied inputs.

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 outcome and the read-only guarantee, then prerequisites, then failure semantics. Dense parentheticals make some sentences long, but each sentence carries distinct operational information rather than restating the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so it is not required to describe return values, yet it still explains the status triad and the fail-closed behavior. Environment prerequisites and version caveats are covered; the remaining hole is the undocumented request payload, which is the main thing an agent needs in order to actually call it.

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% and the single 'request' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties true and no field documentation. The description only says it comes 'from the proposal inputs and results you supply', leaving the actual payload shape entirely unstated, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb-and-resource phrasing: it reports the status (current, not current, unbound) of each proposed retest after a change. An agent can tell this is a comparison/readout tool rather than a proposal or minting tool, though no sibling is named for contrast (e.g. propose_requalification).

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 establishes context (use it with the proposal inputs and results you supply, after a change) and prerequisites (three env settings, API version). But it never explicitly says when to call this instead of propose_requalification or the evidence tools, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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