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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the reply is state-only and never a link, and the link is delivered solely to the request's email. That last point is operationally important for the agent's follow-up behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and state enumeration, then the parameter, then the follow-up instruction. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still supplies the crucial caveat that the response never contains the link. An agent has everything needed to call the tool and act on the result.

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 there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents requestId fully. The description's phrase 'the request id that request_trial returned' largely restates the schema text, adding only provenance framing. Baseline 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 ('Check the state') and resource ('a trial request'), and enumerates the four possible states, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly separable from the sibling request_trial, which creates rather than inspects a request.

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?

Explicitly ties usage to the sibling: 'Pass the request id that request_trial returned,' establishing the ordering dependency, and tells the agent what to do once the state is ready. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus delete_trial_request), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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