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

No annotations provided, so description fully bears burden. It discloses requirement for signup_id from initiate_signup, describes return values (status, next-step instructions), and explains how to handle missing ID, pending >48h, or failed status with specific recommendation.

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?

Description is detailed but each sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage guidelines and edge-case handling. Slightly verbose but acceptable given the richness of guidance.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all important aspects: purpose, usage context, return values, error handling, and even a recommendation for failed/pending cases. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage; schema already describes signup_id. Description adds value by linking it to initiate_signup and explaining error handling for missing ID, justifying a score above baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool checks signup status and specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'where a previously-started Utilify signup stands'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing initiate_signup as the prior call.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries like 'did my electricity signup go through' and 'what's the status of the enrollment we started'. Also states when not to use (if user never signed up) and offers alternative action.

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