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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the status_token is a credential-like value issued at creation time, which tells the agent it must have been retained from the create response.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the object of the call. The enumeration of request types is slightly wordy but each item is load-bearing since it defines the supported scope.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with rich read-only annotations and no output schema; the description covers the credential requirement, which is the main risk of misuse. It doesn't hint at what status values can come back, a minor gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains where status_token comes from, which is the non-obvious part, but it never mentions that reference must match the VD- pattern or that the token is length-bounded – details an agent could only get by reading the raw 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: retrieve the current status of a demo, partnership, or onboarding request. The three request types are enumerated, which separates it from create_demo_request and create_onboarding_request, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the status_token returned when it was created' – the agent can infer it is used after a create_* call – but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on what to do if the token is lost, and no mention of alternatives.

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