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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description discloses that the tool never returns private contact details, enumerates all four possible statuses, includes the 48-hour failure timeout, and notes that timestamps are returned. These are meaningful behaviors an agent needs to know.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the statuses are compactly enumerated. The bilingual German version approximately doubles the length without adding new information for an AI agent, so it is slightly less concise than ideal.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers when to call, all statuses, terminal conditions, polling guidance, and privacy behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The schema only provides type and length constraints for request_id. The description adds crucial semantics by explaining that request_id refers to a contact request previously triggered with request_outreach. It does not go into how the ID is obtained, but the connection to request_outreach is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 ('Returns'), a specific resource ('status of a contact request previously triggered with request_outreach'), and the identifier (request_id). It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that it never returns private contact details and only reports lifecycle status.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage pattern: 'Call repeatedly after request_outreach until the status is completed or failed.' This clearly communicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_creator or search_creators.

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