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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description still adds a concrete rate limit ('no more than once an hour') and notes it 'says what to do next' and returns the address once the house exists. Auth requirements and failure behavior for an invalid ticket are not disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and the possible states, with the rate limit last. The state enumeration is long but directly useful; otherwise little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the meaningful return content (states, next action, address) and adds the polling constraint. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations, this is close to complete; only error/edge behavior for an unknown ticket is unaddressed.

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 and the schema already documents ticket_id as 'the ticket id returned by request_house'. The description adds no format, validity, or example detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('The state of a house request or house by its ticket id') and enumerates the possible states, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling request_house, which mints the ticket this tool consumes.

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 implies polling usage and imposes an explicit frequency constraint ('Ask no more than once an hour'), which is real guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives or any preconditions beyond needing a ticket id, so usage is only implied rather than routed.

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