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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the phrase 'Read-only' merely repeats them. The description does add value beyond annotations, however, by disclosing the scoping rule (the signed-in user's own novels) and by naming the status outcomes a caller can expect, which matters because there is no output schema.

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 core purpose and the status enumeration are front-loaded in one efficient sentence. The trailing 'Read-only.' is pure duplication of the readOnlyHint annotation and earns no place.

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, non-destructive read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers purpose, ownership scope and possible outcomes. It stops short of saying what happens for an unknown or expired request_id, which would round out an otherwise complete picture.

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 single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains request_id as coming from list_my_novels. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("Shows the progress") on a specific resource (one of the signed-in user's novels) and even enumerates the possible states: still being written, delivered by email, or did not finish. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_my_novels or get_novel_options, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: because the tool reports on 'one of' the user's novels, an agent can infer it runs after a novel exists, and the schema's request_id description points to list_my_novels. The description itself states no when-to-use condition and names no alternative for retrieving novel metadata, leaving the routing work to the schema.

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