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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The real added value is the enumeration of the four terminal states (pending, confirmed, rejected, expired), which tells the agent what values to expect given there is no output schema.

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 plus a two-word safety clause, front-loaded with the outcome question and the four states, with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential missing piece - the set of possible return states - and points to the source of the id. It stops short of describing behavior on an unknown or expired id, which is the only remaining gap.

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 single parameter is documented there (including the prp_ prefix), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds minor context by stating where the change_id originates (a capability tool or propose_plan), which is the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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 names a specific verb (report the outcome of) and resource (a proposed change) and enumerates the four possible states, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It is slightly indirect in phrasing ('What became of a change proposed here') and does not name a sibling it competes with, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 rather than stated: the mention of 'the change_id a capability tool or propose_plan returned' tells the agent this is a follow-up check after a proposal, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., the state tools like promotions_state or shop_state).

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