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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds the important privacy trait that the NIN and the person's details are never returned, plus a preview of the payload (status, next_step, products with naira prices). That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about how long a request stays queryable after expiry.

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, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the privacy caveat; the parenthetical status list is long but each value earns its place by telling the agent what to expect. Slightly dense but free of 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?

A read-only status lookup with a single required parameter, an output schema, and full annotation coverage does not need much more. The privacy boundary and status vocabulary are covered; only operational guidance on polling and expired-request behavior is absent, which is a minor gap.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as coming from start_nin_request, so the description merely reinforces the same point. Baseline 3 applies since there is no additional meaning (format, handle lifetime, reuse) contributed 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 resource and scope: it reports where a request created by start_nin_request stands, and enumerates the status vocabulary it can return. An agent can distinguish it from start_nin_request (which creates) without opening either 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 phrase 'Where a request from start_nin_request stands' ties usage to a specific prerequisite tool, giving clear implied context for when to call it. It does not say anything about polling cadence, how soon after starting a request is worth checking, or what to do with each status.

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