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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source type ('official-source'), the cost ('Free'), and the operation type ('check', implying read-only), and the mention of 'inaccessible' hints at the kind of statuses reported. However, it does not state whether the call is read-only, requires authentication, makes external network requests, or what the output looks like.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the purpose, the second lists concrete trigger queries, and the third gives the key exclusion. Every sentence earns its place, and no schema details are redundantly repeated.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, parameter semantics, and exclusion. However, it never explains what the tool returns (e.g., a status report, freshness flags, timestamps) or how it handles an unknown authority, which leaves an agent somewhat in the dark about result handling.

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 must explain the 'authority' parameter, and it does: 'for one authority or globally' clarifies that the parameter narrows the check to a specific authority, while omitting it (null/default) means global coverage. It does not specify the exact string format or naming convention, but the core semantics are clear.

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 verb and resource: a 'health and evidence-freshness check' of official licensing sources. It also distinguishes itself from applicant-eligibility tools by explicitly saying 'Do not use for applicant eligibility itself,' and the enumerated trigger topics (current, stale, changed, conflicted, etc.) make the scope unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use when the user asks whether source data is current, fresh, stale, changed...') and a clear when-not boundary ('Do not use for applicant eligibility itself'). It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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