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

The annotations already indicate a non-modifying, open-world tool. The description adds behavioral details by enumerating the exact status values and their meanings (e.g., awaiting_confirmation, confirmed with stage). It also clarifies PII-free behavior and the required source of the inquiry_id. Nothing contradicts annotations.

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 two sentences: the first covers purpose and allowed statuses, the second adds safety and input guidance. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers status meanings, input origin, and safety. It does not mention error cases (e.g., invalid inquiry_id) but given the openWorldHint and output schema, this is acceptable. Almost 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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already notes the parameter comes from submit_custom_inquiry. The tool description reinforces this and adds context about the origin, which is helpful. Since the schema description is minimal ('From submit_custom_inquiry'), the description's extra clarification adds value.

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 the status of a custom production inquiry. It lists specific status values and explains their meanings, tying the tool directly to the sibling tool submit_custom_inquiry. This distinguishes it from other tools like get_project_status or create_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?

The description implies usage after submitting a custom inquiry via submit_custom_inquiry, making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, such as get_project_status for project-level checks. The reference to submit_custom_inquiry provides good contextual linking.

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