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

The description adds specific context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by enumerating the possible statuses (quoting, quoted, executing, completed, failed) and mentioning that deliverable is returned. This helps the agent understand the scope of the response.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no unnecessary words. The most important information (purpose and status enumeration) is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a simple interface (1 required parameter, no output schema), and the description provides a basic purpose and status list. However, it lacks details about the return structure (e.g., how status and deliverable are presented), which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the 'request_id' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool's purpose. This is insufficient for a required parameter.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status and deliverable of a request'), and lists the possible statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are action-oriented (accept, quote, rerun) or estimation (estimate_cost).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without indicating when it is appropriate or when to prefer other tools like 'spend' or 'estimate_cost'.

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