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

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'machine-readable' gives a format hint, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, or response structure.

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?

One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The list of returned data categories is compact.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description names the input and the broad output categories. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks details about the exact machine-readable format and when to prefer this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'a shelf's' weakly ties shelf_id to the resource being described. This is enough for a single obvious identifier, but it doesn't state the expected format or where to find the shelf_id.

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 names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('a shelf's ... status'), listing the returned categories. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like query_intelligence or list_intelligence.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use describe_intelligence versus list_intelligence, query_intelligence, or search_intelligence. The description implies a read for a shelf but does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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