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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the possible request statuses and noting that quote total, currency, and the brand's approval link are included when the request is quoted.

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 definition is two efficient sentences. The status enumeration is front-loaded, and the instruction about deal_id follows immediately with no wasted text.

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 getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, status values, ID source, and conditional quote fields. It does not explain error behavior for invalid IDs or the full return shape for non-quoted statuses, but it is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents deal_id as 'The request_id from submit_request.' The description reinforces that mapping but does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that this tool returns the current status of a request, enumerating the possible statuses. It also maps deal_id to the request_id from submit_request, which helps distinguish it from broader listing tools like list_deals. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative or contrast.

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 implies the tool should be used after submit_request by telling the caller to pass the request_id from submit_request as deal_id. It does not state when to prefer this over list_deals or get_invoice, nor does it include any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID source.

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