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

With annotations saying little beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint being false, the description carries the burden and does so well: it enumerates the full next_action state machine, marks cancelled as terminal and failed as error-bearing, and discloses the extra fields (stage, plan_cycle, max_cycles) present for planned requests. That is materially more than the annotations supply.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the async caveat follows immediately. The long next_action breakdown is dense but each branch earns its place by naming the consequential outcome; only the trailing 'stage, plan_cycle and max_cycles' sentence is marginally thin on what those mean.

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?

An output schema exists, so the tool did not need to explain returns, yet it usefully maps the key response fields to agent actions. Combined with the polling guidance and terminal-state disclosure, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly; only the input parameters remain unexplained.

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 0% for the two required parameters (project_id, thread_id), and the description says nothing about what identifies a thread or where project_id comes from. The field names it does mention (next_action, generated_roadmap_item_ids, intake_failure_reason) are response fields, not inputs, so the gap in input semantics is unaddressed.

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+resource ('Check what happened to a request') and immediately scopes it to the async intake flow, which distinguishes it from submit_request, refine_request, and answer_request. An agent can tell it apart from the sibling status tools (project_status, get_provisioning_status) without opening a 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?

Explains the polling context explicitly ('Intake is async (~5min cadence), so the status changes between calls') and routes each terminal/branching state to the correct follow-up: answer_questions -> answer_request, done -> generated_roadmap_item_ids, failed -> intake_failure_reason, approve_plan -> dashboard. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over get_provisioning_status or project_status, so no explicit exclusions.

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