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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by enumerating the possible status values (sent, tentative, confirmed, cancelled, completed), which is otherwise absent since there is no output schema.

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 status enumeration and ending with the parameter prerequisite. No filler, though the final sentence adds little beyond what the schema surface implies.

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?

With no output schema, the enumeration of status values is necessary and present, but the required referral_id parameter is never mentioned and the description says nothing about token lifetime, error states, or what happens for an unknown referral. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%: status_token is documented in the schema while referral_id, the sole required parameter, is documented nowhere. Worse, the description says the call "Needs the referral's status_token," implying status_token is required, while the schema marks only referral_id as required — the description misdirects the agent on parameter requirements.

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 (check) and resource (introduction's status) and enumerates the states it reports, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling request_attorney_introduction. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 prerequisite ("Needs the referral's status_token") is stated, implying usage after a referral is created, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like request_attorney_introduction.

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