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

Annotations only mark the tool as read-only; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: status semantics, 24-hour link expiration, and the no-id fallback of listing the last 10 requests. It stops short of describing the exact response shape, but for a simple read-only status tool this is largely sufficient.

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?

Two tight sentences cover the primary status check, the meaning of each status, expiration behavior, and the no-id fallback. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the response structure, but the described statuses and fallback behavior make the tool's behavior sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already documents id as a request id returned by a prepare tool, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the behavior when id is absent, which directly clarifies the optional parameter's semantics beyond the schema.

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 checks whether a prepared request was approved and enumerates the three possible statuses: open, done, or expired. It also explains the no-id variant, making the operation unambiguous and distinguishing it from the prepare_* and list sibling tools.

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 implicitly frames use as 'after a prepare tool returns a request id' and explains what happens when id is omitted. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for status checks.

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