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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does add one useful rule: 'At most two resubmissions.' However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or what happens for missing requests, leaving important behavioral context undisclosed.

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 very concise and front-loads the key fields, with no filler. Its terseness is efficient, though it leaves important usage and parameter details to inference.

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 tool with a required parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the requestId parameter, clarify when to choose this tool over alternatives, or describe the response shape beyond listing field names.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter, requestId, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent is left to infer what requestId refers to and what format or identifier source is expected.

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 names the resource and scope: current on-chain buyer-review phase, deadline, attempt, and outcome. It is specific enough for an agent to identify it as a progress/status lookup, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings such as read_review or get_request.

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 alternatives. It states the visible fields and a resubmission cap, but never says whether this is the right tool for checking review status rather than calling read_review, get_request, or review_inbox.

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