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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership constraint ('you submitted') but provides no additional detail on error behavior, token sensitivity, or rate limits. It adds some value but not substantial behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the object, and the required parameters in a compact and immediately scannable form.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema the description does not explain what status values to expect or how errors manifest. The call pattern (request_id + return_token) is clear, but an agent is left guessing about the response shape and possible failure modes, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does tie both parameters to the operation ('using its request_id and return_token'), giving them clear roles, but it does not explain where return_token comes from, its format, or why it is required. This partial compensation merits a mid score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a request you submitted'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like submit_capability_request and describe_beacon. The phrase 'you submitted' adds an ownership constraint that makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 implied by 'a request you submitted' — the tool is for checking after submission — but it does not explicitly name the sibling submit_capability_request as the prior step, nor does it state when not to use it or alternatives. The guidance is present but left to inference.

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