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

The description meaningfully enriches the annotations: it warns that COMPLETED is simulated rather than real settlement, discloses the conditional side effect of creating a synthetic withdrawal once, states that no credentials are accepted, and explains rerun behavior. These are behavioral facts not available from annotations or the schema alone.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with every sentence adding context about behavior, settlement semantics, or reruns. Minor redundancy exists because 'idempotently' restates the idempotentHint annotation, but overall the structure is efficient.

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?

The description covers several important behavioral aspects, but it never explains the required demo_id parameter or how to obtain it, and it introduces an unexplained request_id that does not match the schema. Without an output schema, key agent-facing details about calling this tool correctly remain unresolved.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain demo_id but never does. Worse, it introduces 'request_id' as something that can be renewed, even though the schema only accepts demo_id and forbids additional properties. This is actively confusing for an agent trying to construct a correct call.

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 identifies the tool's action ('reads its status') and resource ('the fixed test-only journey'), which supports a get-style operation. It is also differentiated from the sibling start_sandbox_demo by describing this as continuing/reading rather than initiating. The possible side effect of creating a withdrawal adds nuance but does not obscure the primary purpose.

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 gives useful context: 'Continues the fixed test-only journey', 'Expired tests can be rerun with a new request_id', and 'No credentials accepted' all help an agent decide when and how to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a sandbox-status tool.

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