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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: the response is scoped to the caller's own submission and redacts other submitters and private curator notes. It does not state what happens if the ID belongs to someone else's request, which is the one behavioral gap.

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, zero filler, with the access-scope constraint front-loaded. Nothing redundant or buried.

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 should say what a returned research request contains; 'question and planning status' gestures at it but leaves the actual returned fields unknown. The single parameter is also left uninterpreted, so an agent has to open the schema to form a valid call.

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 0% and there is a single required 'id' parameter whose format (rqr_ prefix) exists only in the pattern, never explained in prose. The description also never clarifies whether the ID must be one the caller owns, which matters given the stated privacy scoping.

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 (read) and resource (your own submitted question plus planning status), and the 'your own' qualifier separates it from submit-side siblings like suggest_research. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 it should call this to check the status of a question it submitted. There is no explicit when-to-use condition, no mention of what to call for other people's requests, and no guidance on what to do when no request exists.

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