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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by enumerating what the status comprises: requested vs approved counts, credits reserved, finalized/refunded state, and failure reason — which is the actual lifecycle model an agent needs to interpret the call.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the returned fields in a compact enumeration. No filler or repetition, though the list form makes it slightly heavy for a one-line tool.

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 correctly spends its words on what the status contains, which is appropriate for a read tool whose annotations already cover safety. The gap is on the input side: for a nested two-UUID parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify what cardId vs requestId identify.

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 0% and the single parameter is a nested object with cardId and requestId UUIDs, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only indirectly hints that the request belongs to a company (suggesting cardId identifies the company), but never explains what cardId is or how the two IDs relate, leaving the coupling between them undocumented.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ("Returns the status of one contact request") and scopes it to a single record via "one", which separates it from list-style siblings like listRequests. It does not name the near-identical getLatestContactRequest or getRequest, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 "one contact request" implies you call this when you already have a specific request in hand, and the sibling cluster suggests listRequests/getLatestContactRequest cover the other cases. However, the description never states when to prefer this over getRequest or getLatestContactRequest, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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