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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: no email is sent, no wallet is needed, a pending place has no packet, and a posted place names a workId that is claimable. This meaningfully explains what happens and what does not happen during the call.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives query modes, state meanings, and the no-email justification. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of obvious schema information.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains both query modes, the possible statuses, the meaning of pending versus posted, and why this endpoint exists, so an agent can confidently select and invoke 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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the wallet parameter means listing every place that wallet handed over, and by explaining how the returned workId relates to the posted status. This goes slightly beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Read an intake you handed over: pending, posted, or rejected with the reason.' It conveys exactly what the tool returns and covers both lookup modes. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling place_standing, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 clear usage context: pass intakeId for one intake, or wallet to list every place that wallet handed over. It also explains when the results are meaningful, such as pending meaning nothing to claim yet and posted naming the claimable workId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is well implied.

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