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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It identifies the operation as read-only but omits any behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or the meaning of 'canonical'. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic nature.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what statuses are read but does not describe the return format or any behavior. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps for an agent.

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% with a single parameter 'request' that has a clear description. The tool's description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, with high coverage baseline is 3; no extra value provided.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and specifies the resources: 'canonical private request, funding, submission, and payout status'. This clearly indicates the tool retrieves comprehensive status information. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_submission_status', which may be a subset, limiting full clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_submission_status' or 'create_paid_request'. The description does not mention prerequisites or conditions under which the tool should be invoked.

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