Check intake progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it explains the return content (per-item status, chase history, last opened) and how the tool fits into a workflow (scheduled checks, follow-up routing). It does not contradict annotations; it complements them.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose and key outputs, the second explains routing to alternatives, and the third adds the scheduled-check workflow. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of return data and usage scenarios. While it does not specify the exact structure of per-item status or chase history, this is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema; the description still enables an agent to call it correctly and understand the next steps.

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% for the single parameter intake_id, which already includes a clear description. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or format beyond what the schema states, so it adds no extra semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the completion status of a client intake and enumerates the specific data it returns (per-item status, chase history, last portal open). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools like send_chase, request_revision, and get_intake_results, so an agent can immediately understand its role.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the tool to consult before deciding between send_chase, request_revision, or get_intake_results. It also specifies the scheduled-check use case when no webhook is registered, and instructs to fetch results via get_intake_results once status becomes 'completed'. This is thorough and actionable.

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