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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable disclosure: it never returns personal data, the handle is a lookup key rather than a credential, and stale handles over 30 days are rejected. It also states exactly which data is returned, going well beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, with each sentence carrying useful information. The only minor redundancy is 'Read-only,' which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, but it is not bloated enough to lower the score further.

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 status tool, this description covers what it returns, where the ID comes from, important temporal constraints, and privacy guarantees. The presence of an output schema further reduces the burden, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 already explains the submission_id format and its non-credential nature. The description adds meaning on top by specifying the ID comes from submit_pwa and that handles older than 30 days are rejected, so it is more than a baseline 3.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Report where one submission stands.' It then enumerates the returned fields (app name, URL, submission date, tier, published status), which clearly distinguishes it from listing/searching tools like search_pwas and get_pwa. The explicit link to submit_pwa's returned ID anchors its role in the workflow.

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 clear context: call it with the submission_id returned by submit_pwa, and note that handles older than 30 days are rejected. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different needs, so it stops short of a 5.

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