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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's useful additions are the plan gating requirement, the reviewer-notes payload, and the cost ($0.01/call, B1 tier, included in Understanding/Influence). Authentication/quota and billing disclosure is genuinely beyond what the annotations convey.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences each carry actionable information (plan prerequisite, error-reporting alternative, price). The unexplained 'INFLUENCE —' prefix and the trailing 'See apis://prices' pointer are the only mild clutter.

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 description usefully enumerates the terminal and intermediate statuses plus the reviewer-notes field, and it covers the plan gate and pricing. Error/not-found behavior and whether polling is expected are the only notable omissions; still solid for a two-param read 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only restates that the id identifies the request, without adding format or sourcing detail beyond what the id schema note ('returned by request_check, or my_checks lists') already provides. 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 verb+resource (fetch the status of a check request by id) and even enumerates the possible return values: queued, in_review, running, done, rejected, needs_info. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related siblings request_check or my_checks, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite (the Influence plan is now required to read the request back) and routes error reporting to report_correction or a repo issue rather than this tool. That is clear context plus an explicit alternative, but it never states the intended flow (call after request_check to poll).

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