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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses important behavior: request_id triggers a wait of up to 45 seconds, long-running requests must be polled manually until done or failed, results should not be handed directly to the user, team accounts include seats claimed, and an active Whimbrel plan is required.

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 dense but front-loaded: it opens with the resource and status categories, then covers parameter usage, polling behavior, team-account output, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes operational 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?

For a read-only status tool with no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers the main operational questions: what is returned in aggregate, how request_id changes behavior, waiting/polling rules, and plan requirements. It could say more about the return shape, but it is otherwise complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining that request_id selects one request and omission returns the recent ten, and that request_id changes the waiting behavior.

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 states a specific status resource and enumerates exactly which records are included: queued, running, and finished new company records, onboarding requests, records left this month, and saved watches. This is far more specific than a generic status tool and lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools such as check_space_watch or account.

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?

It clearly explains how to use the parameter: pass request_id for one request or omit it for the recent ten. It also gives polling guidance for long runs and notes the active-plan prerequisite, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases.

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