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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts — the resource must be owned by the caller's project and a project API key is required — but says nothing about failure modes or what a returned handoff contains.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. Brevity here is efficient rather than lazy, though it leaves little to work with.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place that could say what "checking" returns (status enum? form data? completion state?), and it doesn't. For a lookup tool the caller cannot predict the response shape at all.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is not stated whether `id` is the handoff ID or the underlying interview/session ID, which is exactly the ambiguity that sinks calls.

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?

"Checks a hosted handoff owned by your project" gives a verb and resource, but "checks" is vague — it doesn't say whether it retrieves status, details, or existence. The sibling get_result makes it unclear how a handoff differs from a result, and the description does nothing to separate them.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus get_result, list_templates, or other read siblings. The only contextual statement is an auth prerequisite (project API key), which is useful but not usage routing.

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