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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It implies a read-only check by using 'Check status' and lists possible outcomes, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or mention any required permissions or side effects.

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 verb 'Check status', and no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating function, listing outputs, and providing usage condition.

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?

Covers the main behavior, return values, and usage context. Lacks explicit mention of error cases or authentication, but for a simple status check, it is largely complete. No output schema, so description compensates by listing possible statuses.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It adds contextual flavor ('your operator', 'filer') but no additional parameter-specific meaning 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks the status of a product request, lists the possible return values (pending, approved, denied, dismissed, completed), and distinguishes from sibling submit_product_request by referencing it as the source of the request_id.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this tool when holding a request_id and needing an update for the filer, which is a clear condition. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the condition implicitly excludes other scenarios.

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