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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the token's ownership model, that there is nothing to guess or enumerate, that the tool returns only processing status and never customer data, and it enumerates all possible status values with meanings.

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 tightly written, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The security note is brief but important, and the status enum list is clear and complete without unnecessary wording.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully equips an agent to call the tool correctly: it explains how to obtain the token, what the operation returns, what it never returns, and the complete set of status values. Nothing essential is missing for this simple single-parameter 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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'session_token' with no description, so the description must compensate. It explains the token's source, its ownership property, and how it is issued, which is highly useful. Slight deduction because the description calls it 'status_token' without explicitly mapping it to the schema's 'session_token' parameter name.

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's verb ('Check'), resource ('processing status of an inquiry'), and provides a strong link to send_inquiry. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling vehicle-focused tools, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool: after sending an inquiry with send_inquiry and possessing the status_token from its response. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but it makes the prerequisite condition so specific that the intended usage is unmistakable.

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