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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: it is free, keyless, requires no signature, and a blocked/open result carries no service guarantee. It does not describe pagination or error semantics, but the output schema plus annotations cover most of that burden.

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?

Front-loads the operation and then adds exclusions, warning, cost, and signer details in a compact set of sentences. Slightly verbose with phrasing like 'door' and repeated assurance of public access, but every sentence is relevant.

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?

Covers what is read, what the result represents, the read-only safety profile, cost/signing requirements, and a caveat about missing or blocked requests. With the output schema and annotations already present, this is nearly complete, though it could more explicitly distinguish itself from next_action and work_status siblings.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as the request.id returned by submit_request. The description only restates that the id comes from a public signed request, adding no format or lookup details beyond the schema.

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 and resource: read one public signed request by id, returning its current resolution and next-action projection. It explicitly distinguishes itself from submit_request, funding events, and proof of completion, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly says this is a read, directs agents to funding_quote when a work packet is linked, and warns that a missing, blocked, or still-open request is not a promise of service. It does not explicitly route against next_action, my_next_step, or work_status, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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