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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read within a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: onboarding requests are included alongside research, Seat-plan replies carry seat counts, and an active Whimbrel key 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?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the scoping statement is front-loaded. Minor overlap with the schema on the request_id default keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does name the statuses and the Seat-plan seat detail. Auth requirement is disclosed; only pagination beyond the default ten is left unaddressed.

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 says 'One request to check; omit for your recent ten.' The description's parameter sentence largely restates that default rather than adding format or semantics beyond it, so the baseline of 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 resource and the exact states covered ('queued, running, and finished research and onboarding requests'), which tells an agent precisely what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling, though none of the sibling names (e.g., deep_record, latest_signals) overlap with status polling, so confusion risk is low.

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 explains how to use the parameter ('Pass request_id for one request, or omit it for the recent ten') but gives no guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus alternatives such as deep_record or about_the_data. Usage is implied (check on a submitted research request) rather than stated.

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