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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about access filtering by acting user, sites, record visibility, and read scopes, plus the explicit non-mutation boundary.

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 and compact. The second sentence partially repeats the first's outcome/result-ID idea, but overall it remains 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?

For a simple read-only query tool, it covers usage, access scope, and non-mutation behavior. However, it leaves the optional filter parameters undocumented and does not describe how results are structured, which is a meaningful gap given the lack of an output schema.

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%, so the description should explain the two optional parameters. It never mentions the status or draftId parameters, and while it references outcomes like pending/rejected, it does not map them to the status enum or explain draftId filtering.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: checking prior request/draft review outcomes and retrieving record IDs. It distinguishes itself from creation-oriented siblings by stating it does not approve, execute, or send anything, though it could name the draft siblings more directly.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Use this when checking whether a prior request is pending, rejected or applied and retrieving its record ID.' It also implicitly clarifies when not to use it by saying it does not approve, execute, or send, but it does not name specific alternatives.

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