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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact—that the returned data is 'privacy-minimized'—but does not explain what that minimization means concretely, nor anything about session lifetime or failure modes.

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?

A single compact sentence with the read scope front-loaded and no filler. The enumerated state list is dense but earns its place by telling the agent what progression stages are surfaced.

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?

With a rich annotation set and an output schema, most structured information is already carried elsewhere, and the description needn't explain return values. However, in a sibling cluster containing four other '*get_status' tools, the missing routing guidance and session-token provenance leave a real gap for an agent choosing between them.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'sessionToken'. The phrase 'for one application session' implies the token identifies the session being inspected, but the description never explains where the token comes from, its lifetime, or what happens if it is stale.

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 (Read) and a specific resource (the progression state for one application session), and even enumerates the state families it covers (hold, contract, signature, payment, reservation, confirmation). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as applications.get_status or payments.get_status, which read overlapping state.

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 only usage signal is the scoping phrase 'for one application session'. There is no statement of when to call this versus applications.get_status, payments.get_status, or viewings.get_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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