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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the possible return states and the payload attached to two of them (quoted includes price and payment instructions, done includes a result), which is the closest thing to a return contract given there is no output schema. It stops short of saying whether polling is expected or how the state transitions.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and the status enumeration earns its space because it doubles as the return-value documentation. No filler or hedging.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the returned statuses mean. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the agent should poll or how long states persist.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already explains it is the request_id returned by request_service. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status of a request') and enumerates the full status vocabulary with a brief gloss of what each state carries ('done (with result)', 'quoted (price and how to pay)'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with request_service or any other sibling, so it falls short of the top band.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only hint that this follows a prior creation step lives in the schema's request_id description, not in the description itself, so an agent must infer the workflow from elsewhere.

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