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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses authorization requirements, that facts survive VA session expiry and server restarts, that revoked or expired app permission stops sharing, and that the data is a dated snapshot rather than a live check. It also bounds what the returned facts mean ('do not establish property ownership, primary residence, tax eligibility or filing authority'), which is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and access requirement, then layers persistence, staleness and scope disclaimers. Dense but every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is between 'active sharing permission' and 'expired or revoked app permission stops sharing', which restates the same gate from the opposite direction.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it covers authorization, persistence across sessions, staleness and how to present results, plus explicit scope limits on the returned facts. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response responsibly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to describe and no semantic gap to fill. Baseline 4 applies; the description's instruction to surface verified_at and freshness is a useful presentation hint rather than parameter documentation.

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 and resource: read the VA facts shared with this account. It also scopes what the resource is ('limited, dated VA facts') and negates a misconception ('saved snapshot, not a live check'). It does not explicitly name start_va_connection or disconnect_va_connection as the alternative paths, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use: requires owner:va and an active sharing permission, and states that browser sign-in alone is not sufficient. It also frames when the data is stale ('reverification may be needed'). It stops short of routing the agent to the sibling tools that establish or tear down that sharing.

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