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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious operational facts: rate-limited, no auth required. It also enumerates status outcomes and explains what 'answered' and 'converted' carry, which tells the agent how to interpret a null-ish result.

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-loaded with the purpose and parameter routing, and the example call is compact and useful. The return shape is stated twice — once inline as the status enum gloss and again in a 'Returns: object {...}' line — which is redundant given an output schema exists.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: purpose, parameter routing, status semantics, auth, and rate limits are all present. The only flaw is slight over-specification of return fields the output schema already defines.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that with concrete example values ('issue-1234', '1234', the 16-char hash) and a restatement of the either/or requirement. Most of this information is duplicated from the schema field descriptions rather than adding new semantics.

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 — check the status of a previously submitted intake — and scopes it with 'without re-submitting,' which implicitly carves it away from the submit_intake sibling. An agent can distinguish this from misakanet_submit_intake without opening either schema.

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 usage context ('previously submitted intake ... without re-submitting') and explicitly routes parameter choice: intake_id for question intakes, dedup_key for any intake. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a named pointer to misakanet_submit_intake for new submissions, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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