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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the read-only nature. It adds useful behavioral detail by listing the possible status results and explicitly stating that the message and address are never returned, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or handle expiry.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds the possible outcomes, read-only note, and privacy constraint in two short sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information with no waste.

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 one-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides enough detail about return states and explicitly rules out returning sensitive content. An agent can call this correctly without additional context.

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%, and the single handle parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that the handle comes from send_message or request_callback but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail 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?

The description states a specific purpose: checking the status of a request created by send_message or request_callback using the returned handle. It names the sibling tools and enumerates the possible outcomes, so an agent can distinguish it from the creation tools without opening the schema.

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 clearly ties use to handles returned by send_message or request_callback, which implies the post-submission polling context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative status-checking tool, but the intended usage context is clear.

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