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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that a business may take a while to answer and that waiting is a normal result, which prepares the agent for a non-final or pending response. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and then adds the important waiting expectation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It covers what the tool reads, where the token comes from, and the normal waiting behavior.

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 request_id and status_token are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the status_token comes from the originating request call, but adds no format, validation, or usage detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, "Reads," and a specific resource, "the business's answer to a request," and ties it to the originating tools submit_quote_request and request_callback. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_quote or query_business_agent.

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?

It explicitly states the prerequisite: use the status_token returned by submit_quote_request or request_callback. It also sets the expectation that waiting is normal, which helps the agent understand the intended usage context. It stops short of naming when not to use it or comparing it to every potentially related sibling.

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