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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the owner-only access constraint, the exact status enum values, and the three concrete pieces of data returned (in-flight version, reviewer's needs-changes reason, security-scan findings with severity). It also pre-empts the obvious safety question by stating READ-ONLY outright.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and the alternative-tool framing, and the return payload is enumerated compactly. It is slightly redundant in restating the status outcomes twice ('draft | pending_review | needs_changes | published | rejected' then 'approved, is still in review, or was sent back'), which costs it a point.

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 values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the meaningful fields. Combined with owner-only scope, the status enum, and the submit-after framing, an agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it.

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% and the schema already documents the single 'agent' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by stressing the parameter must be YOUR agent and by cross-referencing where the slug/id comes from (findagent_list_my_agents / findagent_create_draft), which scopes the value beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check the review status of YOUR OWN agent') and immediately adds the differentiator ('WHY it is where it is'). It explicitly positions itself as 'the missing companion to findagent_submit_for_review', separating it from siblings like findagent_get_agent or findagent_submission_wizard without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

'Use this after submitting to see whether it was approved, is still in review, or was sent back' gives a clear trigger condition and ties it to the submit workflow. It also states the owner-only restriction. It stops short of explicitly excluding the closest alternatives (e.g., when to prefer findagent_get_agent), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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