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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious facts beyond that: access requires private receipt credentials (an auth condition), and contact details are deliberately withheld/separated from the returned record. It does not cover error behavior for a bad token, but the added context is substantive.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler. 'Contact details are kept apart' is compact but slightly cryptic in isolation, which keeps it just below the top mark.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back; it does so only at a high level ('the recorded requirement and any linked offers') without indicating structure, whether offers are summarized or full, or what happens on an invalid token. For a read-only, fully documented two-parameter tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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%: 'id' is documented as the request or offer id from the receipt or customer link, and 'token' as the private token to retain for later visits. The description's 'using the receipt credentials' merely restates that provenance, adding no new meaning about format or scope.

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 says it resumes/reads a 'requirement' and any linked offers using receipt credentials, which conveys a read of a stored record plus its associated offers. However, the vocabulary ('requirement', 'resume') does not map cleanly onto the tool name request_status, and it never distinguishes this from sibling readers like inspect_offer or inspect_delivery, which plausibly return overlapping data.

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 only usage signal is the implicit requirement for receipt credentials. There is no statement of when to choose this over inspect_offer, inspect_delivery, or report_vendor_status, and no mention of what to do if the token is invalid or expired.

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