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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the check uses a dated active SAM snapshot, accepts up to 20 identities, keeps exact versus name-only matches distinct, and clarifies that no match is not clearance. This meaningfully extends the annotation coverage.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the match-type distinction and an important caveat; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation context: subject, input size, snapshot timing, match categories, and the no-match-is-not-clearance limitation. It is mostly complete for a read-only batch check tool, but the generation parameter remains underspecified and no usage alternatives are mentioned, so it is not fully complete.

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 description adds some meaning to the identities parameter by stating the 20-identity limit and explaining exact identifier versus name-only matching. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the generation parameter is not explained at all in either the schema or the description, so the description only partially compensates.

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 action — checking up to 20 identities against a dated active SAM snapshot — and adds meaningful distinctions between exact identifier matches and name-only matches. It is clear about the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_exclusions or search.

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 intended use is implied: batch-check exclusion identities against a snapshot. However, no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, such as search_exclusions or exclusion_changes, is provided, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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