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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the three outcome states and that a rejection reason accompanies a rejected status, telling the agent what result shape to expect.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste; the core status-checking purpose is stated first, the rejection reason second, and the credential prerequisite last.

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 rich annotations, fully described parameters, and a separate output schema, the description only needs to frame purpose and outcome states, which it does. The only missing piece is any indication of error behavior for an invalid or expired editKey.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only adds that the reportId and editKey are the ones received when filing the report, which is marginal provenance detail rather than a syntax or format clarification.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it reports whether a submitted report is under review, accepted, or rejected, and returns the operator's reason when rejected. Its purpose is clearly distinct from siblings like submit_event and report_event_change, though it never names them 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?

It states the prerequisite that the caller must have the reportId and editKey handed out at submission time, which implies the tool is used after submitting a report. There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives.

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