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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the lookup is free, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain return format or any constraints around the existence check.

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 efficient sentence with the core existence-check action front-loaded. It contains no redundant or wasted phrasing.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it communicates the existence-check purpose and that the lookup is free. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the return shape, such as a boolean result.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single required fingerprint parameter as a 64-character hex SHA-256 value. The description adds source context (label, certificate, or document), but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: checking whether a record fingerprint exists in Privi. It clearly distinguishes a lookup/existence check from sibling tools such as verify_lot or chain_of_custody.

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 gives useful context that the fingerprint may come from a label, certificate, or document, and notes that the lookup is free. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus sibling tools like privi_verify_lot or privi_chain_of_custody.

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