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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: it includes requests whose stream was interrupted, which is beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or whether billing info is always present. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (status and final billing) and adds the key edge-case detail (interrupted streams). No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns (status and final billing) and an important edge case (interrupted streams). It doesn't mention response format or error handling, but given the simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor 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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'by request_id' which maps to the single required parameter, but it doesn't add format or validation details beyond the schema. Since there is only one parameter and the description names it, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving status and final billing for a previous Layrcake request by request_id. It uses a specific verb ('get'), a specific resource ('request'), and adds a distinguishing detail (includes interrupted streams) that separates it from siblings like get_operation and get_usage.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need status and final billing for a previous request, including interrupted streams. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'previous request' and the sibling list (e.g., get_operation, get_usage) makes the use case reasonably clear. A 4 is appropriate because it provides clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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