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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance by stating that only 'non-sensitive' status is returned, which tells the agent the response is intentionally sanitized. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss authentication or response filtering details.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by a targeted alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameter-count tool with readOnly/idempotent annotations and an output schema, the description covers scope and the primary sibling alternative well. However, the complete absence of parameter guidance for intentId leaves a small but meaningful gap in the overall calling context.

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 description never mentions 'intentId' or explains where it comes from, what it represents beyond the request context, or how to obtain it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it does not, leaving the parameter semantics mostly dependent on the parameter name.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('non-sensitive status of a historical checkout or proposal request'), which clearly distinguishes it from related status tools. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the live-trial status sibling, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

The description provides a clear directive for when not to use the tool ('For the real trial use dp_commercial_get_live_trial_status') and names the exact alternative. The first sentence implies the affirmative use case: retrieving checkout or proposal status, which is sufficient guidance.

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