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

The annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description enumerates seven possible states and explains that the latest message and an initially conditional list of accepting creators are included, though it says nothing about freshness, errors, or polling behavior.

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 single compact sentence front-loads the purpose and then lists the returned information. The status enumeration and 'once there are any' clause convey useful state and availability details without filler.

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 one-argument read, the description covers the possible states and principal returned information well, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema. Missing request_id provenance and an explicit distinction from get_job prevent full completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should document request_id, but it never names the parameter or explains where to obtain its value, such as from a request_outreach response. The reference to request_outreach permits a weak inference about the identifier's origin but does not adequately compensate for the undocumented 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?

The description identifies the resource as a request_outreach request and specifies that the tool reports its status, CxB's latest message, and creators who accepted. This clearly distinguishes status inspection from initiating outreach, though it does not explicitly differentiate the similarly named get_job sibling.

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?

Naming a request_outreach request provides clear context for inspecting an existing outreach request after that workflow has begun. It does not explicitly address polling, exclusions, or when an agent should use get_job instead.

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