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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the prerequisite and notes that it returns the updated application status, but it does not explain side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits beyond that.

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 tight sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded and the return behavior stated last. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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?

For a simple one-parameter verification-check tool, the description covers the trigger and a brief return summary. However, it omits any explanation of application_id and gives no failure or pending-state context, leaving a gap against the 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the single parameter, but it never mentions application_id. The property name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this from being a total failure, but there is no added meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 (check the published verification token) and the resource (DNS TXT record or /.well-known/cgbb-verification.txt), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_application_status, but the prerequisite and token focus still distinguish it.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance: use this after publishing the token via DNS TXT or the well-known file. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite is explicit enough for correct invocation.

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