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

The annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by naming the returned status enum and the purpose of the update, giving the agent expectations beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences convey purpose, return values, and usage context with no filler. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 read-only status lookup, the description covers the trigger condition, required input provenance, output possibilities, and the broader purpose. The annotations cover side-effect safety, and the status list compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning to request_id by specifying it is the UUID returned by submit_product_request, which helps the agent source the correct value; companyId is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool checks the status of a product request filed via submit_product_request, and enumerates the exact possible statuses. It is unambiguously distinct from related siblings like submit_product_request or reopen_product_request.

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 explicitly says to use the tool when the agent holds a request_id and needs an update for the filer, and links it to the prior submission action. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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