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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and 'Changes nothing' merely restates them — but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the three possible states (waiting, approved with link, not accepted with reviewer note). It stops short of saying what happens when the id/code do not match or whether that surfaces as an error or a not-found state.

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?

One compact sentence with the safety cue front-loaded and the outcome branches ordered logically. The bookended 'Read-only... Changes nothing' is mild redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming all three result states. The remaining gap is failure behavior when the id or claim code is wrong or unknown, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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%, so both parameters are already documented as coming 'from the receipt'. The description only adds the matching semantics ('when its submission id and claim code match'), which is modest value over the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Shows where a story submitted to Plot Speaks stands') and makes clear this is a status lookup keyed by submission id + claim code, which cleanly separates it from siblings like submit_story, withdraw_submission, and list_stories.

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?

It gives an implied precondition (a receipt-derived submission id and claim code must match) and enumerates what you learn, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives such as my_history or list_stories, nor when not to use it (e.g., no claim code on hand).

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