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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (signed status, cross-check outcome, digest) and adds timing context ('once delivered') as well as the REST routing note for container bytes. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but 'current state' implies no mutation, and no side-effect or error details are given.

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?

The description is two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a single important limitation. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description explains what information is available, adds a timing nuance, and clarifies what the tool does not do (container bytes). It doesn't cover return formatting or error behavior, but the information provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter (orderId from create_kyc_package). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description's reference to 'order' aligns with the 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 clearly states the tool reports the current state of a KYC package order, listing specific elements: signing status, cross-check outcome, and evidence container digest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on the KYC package lifecycle rather than beneficial owners, court cases, etc.

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?

The description implies this is the check-status tool for a KYC package order, and it explicitly excludes fetching container bytes via this tool (noting they come over REST). This provides a useful when-not boundary, though it doesn't name alternatives or describe the typical create-then-check flow explicitly.

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