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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context that this is a status-only view of official CQC evidence, and 'bounded' suggests the result is constrained in scope. However, it does not disclose details like caching, staleness ranges, or any operational edge behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the action, the bounded nature of the status, the CQC evidence domain, and the decision-service provenance.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the source domain and the nature of the returned data. It falls just short of a 5 because it does not offer any usage context or clarify what 'bounded freshness/conflict status' concretely looks like beyond what the output schema provides.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The input schema fully covers invocation requirements, and the description adds context about what the returned status refers to.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('bounded freshness/conflict status for official CQC evidence maintained by the decision service'). It is clearly about status rather than plugin info, preflight input, or workflow guidance, though it does not explicitly name or contrast its 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cqc_plugin_info, cqc_preflight_input_guide, or cqc_workflow_guide. Usage context is only implied by the word 'status' and the CQC source framing.

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