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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world; the description adds materially more — it discloses the return shape ({ dispatchId, eventId, next }) and the critical semantic that the replay carries the ORIGINAL event id, requiring receiver-side dedupe. It omits auth requirements and idempotency/rate-limit nuance, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the action and the constraint, then the return contract. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the preconditions, the return payload shape, and the dedupe hazard the caller must handle. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added constraint on requestId validity ('terminal requests only') is already credited under usage, leaving little new parameter-level meaning.

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: 'Re-queue the terminal callback of a finished request', with the reason ('the escape hatch for a receiver that was down past the retry budget'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like request_cancel, request_remind, request_create, and request_get without opening any 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?

Gives explicit preconditions and exclusions: terminal requests only (completed, expired, canceled) and only when callbackUrl was set. It does not name alternative tools for the non-terminal case (e.g., request_remind or request_cancel), so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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