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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' mostly restates structured data. What the description adds beyond annotations is meaningful domain semantics: 'pending means the operator has not confirmed yet; only operatorConfirmed=true means the ride is confirmed', which the agent could not derive from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger followed by prerequisites and exclusions. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations beyond a one-word safety restatement.

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 described, and the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: how to interpret status values (pending vs operatorConfirmed). Prerequisites, inputs and exclusion of write behavior are all present for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and that establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds only the provenance of `reference` (returned by create_transfer_request) and clarifies the email is the one used at submission time — useful but marginal, with no format or matching-rule detail beyond the schema.

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 ('check transfer request status') and frames it in terms of the customer question it answers (confirmed, assigned or cancelled). It also explicitly separates itself from the create/change siblings, so an agent can route without opening 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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('when the customer asks whether their transfer request was confirmed, assigned or cancelled'), names where the required reference comes from (create_transfer_request), and states a negative constraint ('Do not use to create or change a request'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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