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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real context: ownership and evidence are rechecked at read time, and withdrawn or changed evidence withholds the answer. That conditional-withholding behavior is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing error behavior or what a withheld response looks like.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slight weakness: the ownership restriction is appended last rather than grouped with the access/withholding semantics.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, access constraints, and the fact that the result is a status plus an answer. No output schema means it should sketch return values, which it does minimally; error/withheld-response shape and the id format are the remaining 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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden, yet it never explains the 'id' argument's format (the rsq_ ULID pattern in the schema) or where the agent obtains it. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 private request status and answer), and the possessive scope distinguishes it from the sibling read tools get_research_request and get_record. It never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is implied by scope rather than stated.

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: read back the status/answer of a resident request you submitted, with a stated access constraint ('Owner credentials cannot read another agent's request'). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus siblings like cancel_resident_request or get_research_request, and no when-not beyond the ownership restriction.

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