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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declaring a safe read, the description adds meaningful state context: the offer may be open, a link may be waiting for the human, and credit remains after acceptance. It does not discuss authentication fallback despite the passport_token parameter, but the core behavioral states are disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that lists the relevant status dimensions without padding. Its nested conditional clause is slightly dense but remains efficient and readable.

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 low-complexity read-only status tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what states and values the agent will learn. It does not cover auth fallback or sibling routing, but those gaps are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 schema fully describes the single optional passport_token parameter, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when coverage is 100%.

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 identifies a status resource: the free start, whether the offer is open, whether a link is waiting for a human, and remaining starter credit. This is specific enough to distinguish it from a status check for top-ups, but it does not explicitly name the sibling start_free or other alternatives.

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 explains what information the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to siblings such as start_free or top_up_status. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the status content.

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