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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is explanatory (a how-to, not an action) and enumerates what it covers, including 'their limits', but says nothing about the depth, format, or coverage boundaries of the guidance.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the trigger condition. Every clause earns its place, with minor redundancy between 'check or verify' and 'verify, check, or prove'.

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, read-only, one-optional-param advisory tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what topics it covers. The only omission is that it does not hint at the shape or length of the returned guidance.

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?

There is a single optional enum parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description never references the 'audience' parameter or how it tailors the answer, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Explains how to check or verify a person's income') and lists the covered subject types and methods (bank-based income analysis, pay stubs, limits). It reads clearly as an informational tool, implicitly distinct from action siblings like start_income_verification or send_verification_request, though it never names an alternative.

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: 'Use when someone asks how to verify, check, or prove income.' This is clear context for invocation, but it offers no exclusions or routing to related tools such as list_verifications or start_income_verification.

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