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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Reads information' aligns well. However, the description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations (e.g., idempotency, error handling, or authentication needs). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with two short sentences that are front-loaded and contain no filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, output schema present), the description is adequate. It covers the basic purpose and operation. However, it could briefly mention the typical response contents (e.g., 'status: pending/completed/failed') to improve completeness without burdening the description. Since output schema exists, the burden is lower, so 4 is fair.

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% for the single parameter 'requestId', which is described as 'Wubble request ID to inspect' in the schema. The tool description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Wubble request status', and the phrase 'Reads information' emphasizes it is a read operation. While the purpose is clear, it does not explain what 'status' includes (e.g., pending, completed, failed), which could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'wubble_wait_for_request' (which likely polls until completion) or when not to use it. It does not mention context such as prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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