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

The 'Read-only' line restates readOnlyHint=true, adding nothing beyond the annotation, but 'Returns no contact data' is genuine added context about the privacy scope of the response. It does not cover error behavior for unknown/invalid references.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses with no filler: identity of the resource, possible values, and privacy/safety note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the possible status values and states what is withheld. It is slightly short on edge-case behavior (unknown reference, expired reference) but is otherwise sufficient for a one-parameter read tool.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its origin from request_quote/request_booking), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by reference' phrasing adds no syntax, format, or length 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (status of a quote or booking request) and enumerates the possible outcomes (requested, confirmed, declined), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like request_quote/request_booking, but the read-vs-create split is clear from context.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the follow-up call to request_quote/request_booking once a reference exists, but the description never says when to call it or what to do if no reference is available. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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