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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds two useful behavioral facts: access requires receipt credentials (an auth prerequisite not expressible in annotations), and returned data separates contact details from the request record — useful privacy context for interpreting the response.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the credential requirement is front-loaded. The wording is slightly awkward ('Resume a requirement', 'kept apart'), but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter, read-only, non-destructive status lookup with no output schema, the description covers the auth requirement and sketches what is returned (recorded requirement plus linked offers). The main residual gap is that the 'id' parameter's meaning is left unexplained.

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 50% schema coverage (only 'token' is documented in the schema), the description should compensate, and it partially does by framing both parameters as 'receipt credentials'. However it does not explain what 'id' is (a UUID request identifier) nor how it relates to the token, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented in both places.

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 conveys that it retrieves a previously recorded request plus any linked offers, which is the right resource, but the phrasing 'Resume a requirement using the receipt credentials' uses vocabulary ('resume', 'requirement') that does not match the tool name 'request_status'. An agent can roughly infer the purpose but gets no clean verb+resource statement and no differentiation from siblings like inspect_offer or describe_proposition.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative named. The mention of 'receipt credentials' implies this is the follow-up call after submit_request, but the agent must infer that from the sibling list rather than from the text.

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