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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by defining each state's operational meaning, notably that 'pending' requires the user to confirm an email and that 'forward_failed' is auto-retried within the hour, telling the agent no corrective action is needed.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the state enumeration. The parenthetical glosses are dense but every one carries operational meaning rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, explaining the returned states is precisely the missing context an agent needs, and the description supplies it in full. Only gap is the absence of guidance on how quickly states change or whether re-polling is expected.

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% and the single parameter's description already gives the format example (F-7KQ2M9XW) and its origin. The description adds nothing about request_id, so the baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the state of a request,' and the title ties it to a 'Finish my build request'. It clearly distinguishes a status check from the sibling request_finish, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is the follow-up call after submitting via request_finish, since the schema references the id request_finish returned. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of polling cadence.

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