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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful polling behavior and return-field context, but omits practical details such as polling cadence, rate limits, token expiration, or what happens if the request is unknown.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the returned data and followed by the key usage instruction. There is no wasted text.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable picture of return content and polling use. However, it leaves the two required parameters opaque and gives no guidance on authentication or polling constraints, so an agent still has gaps before calling it confidently.

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 should compensate for undocumented parameters. It says nothing about what 'ref' identifies or what 'customer_token' is for, leaving both required parameters explained only by their names.

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-lookup operation and enumerates the returned information (ETA/arrival window, business response, next step). It is more specific than a generic 'get status', but it does not explicitly name the resource ('request') or differentiate from siblings as sharply as it could.

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 phrase 'Poll this while waiting on a business' gives a concrete usage context and implies repeated calls are expected. It does not mention when not to use it or name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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