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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining what each status value means — notably that pending_confirmation waits on a customer e-mail click, that confirmed means the quote arrives by e-mail, and that superseded/expired states exist.

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 dense sentence with the resource and origin front-loaded, followed by the status enumeration. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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, the status enumeration effectively documents the return value, which is the key thing an agent needs. It does not mention other fields that may accompany the status (timestamps, booking URL, expiry time), a minor gap for an otherwise simple read-only tool.

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 id parameter is already documented as "qr_…" from request_quote. The description reinforces the provenance of the id but adds no format or lookup detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific resource (a quote request's status) and explicitly ties it to the sibling request_quote that creates it, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from cancel_checkout, get_checkout, or update_checkout.

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 implicit but clear: this is the polling tool for a quote request created by request_quote, and the id comes from that call. No explicit when-not-use or guidance on polling frequency, but the context of use is unambiguous.

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