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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's polling instruction is consistent with idempotency and adds mild context, but it says nothing about authentication (customer_token) or rate limits on polling.

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 tight sentences: the return payload is front-loaded and the usage cue follows. No filler, nothing repeated from the title.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the description covers returns and polling adequately. However, with 0% parameter coverage it leaves the meaning and source of 'ref' and 'customer_token' unexplained, which is a real gap for a required-parameter tool.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. The required 'ref' is never explained (request reference? order id?) and 'customer_token' is entirely undocumented, so the agent must guess at both.

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 names a specific resource (a request) and enumerates what the read returns: current status, ETA/arrival window, business response, and next step. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_business or get_service_requirements.

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?

'Poll this while waiting on a business' gives a concrete usage context and implies repeated invocation is expected. It stops short of naming when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent needs.

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