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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value on top: it is non-blocking, it shares its status vocabulary with wait_for_live_status, and 'no_response' carries a specific meaning (owner didn't answer within 5 minutes). It does not describe the return payload shape, but no output schema exists and it points to a sibling for the full status list.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the defining constraint ('ONCE, no waiting'), followed by the alternative and the one non-obvious status value. No filler or redundant restatement of 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, non-blocking behavior, and one status edge case, and routes to a sibling for the full status set. The only minor gap is that the complete status list is not inline, which is a reasonable delegation rather than an omission.

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% and the schema already says queryId is the value returned by request_live_status. The description only restates 'by its queryId', adding no format, validation, or reuse details beyond the structured field. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a live question's status') plus a scope qualifier ('ONCE, no waiting') and the key parameter ('by its queryId'). It also names the sibling it is not (wait_for_live_status), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer the alternative: 'For a fresh question you're waiting on, prefer wait_for_live_status (it blocks until the owner answers).' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule with the trade-off that drives the choice.

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