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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a safe read. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that a valid consent_token is required (authorization constraint) and that results are restricted to the user's own prayers. It also mentions the answered status field. It does not detail response format or error behavior, but for a read-only tool with this level of annotation coverage, the added context is solid.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, the prerequisite, and the scoping rule with zero waste. Every clause earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the prerequisite (consent_token), and the data it returns (count and answered flag). It does not describe the response format explicitly, but the description implies the key fields. No significant information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% – both prayer_id and consent_token have descriptive entries in the schema. The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, though it reinforces the consent_token requirement. Since the schema carries the full parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Check how many people are praying for a prayer request previously submitted for a user (and whether it's been marked answered).' It uses a specific verb (check), names the resource (prayer status), and distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_prayer_request by referencing 'previously submitted'. The scope constraint ('only returns status for that user's own prayers') further clarifies what it does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'previously submitted' implies it should be used after a prayer request has been created via submit_prayer_request. It also specifies a prerequisite ('Requires the same user's consent_token') and the scoping rule. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', though the sibling list makes the pairing obvious.

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