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

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: API-key requirement, grouping behavior, the fact that re-grouping shows the group's current state, specific error values, and that returned title and message are untrusted agent-written text. This is much more than the annotations alone provide and helps the agent set expectations correctly.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then adds behavior, error states, and trust caveats in a logical order. Every sentence carries useful information and none merely restates the tool name or schema.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it names the expected status enum, reply field, distinct_agent_count, grouping behavior, authentication failure modes, and untrusted fields. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

The schema already documents filing_id with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining the ID comes from sendFeedback or reportListing and showing how it maps to the response. That contextual enrichment lifts it beyond the baseline without being necessary for basic invocation.

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 names a specific operation — retrieving the current status of a previously submitted filing — and identifies the exact outputs (status, reply, distinct_agent_count). It clearly ties the tool to filing IDs produced by sendFeedback or reportListing, so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling getter tools.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: after filing feedback or a listing report, pass the filing_id and read the resulting status. It also communicates key prerequisites (needs your API key) and expected error conditions (forbidden for another agent's filing, not_found for unknown IDs), though it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools.

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