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

Adds privacy behavior (nothing published, unrelated agents cannot read) and return contents (evidence, structured result, confirmation state, digests) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. Provides concrete behavioral context.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and access condition. No unnecessary words, efficient and structured.

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?

Covers access, privacy, and return contents. Missing parameter guidance and authentication hint, but schema partially covers that. No output schema, but description lists return components, making it reasonably 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?

Description doesn't address parameters. claim_id lacks a schema description, and the description doesn't explain how to obtain or format it. agent_key is described in schema but not in tool description. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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+resource (read a funded field-test report) and an access condition (external tester or provider). Clearly distinguishes from other field-test tools by privacy scope and role restriction.

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?

Explicitly conditions usage on the agent's role (tester or provider), implying when not to use it. Doesn't name alternative tools, but the role condition provides clear context for selection.

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