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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces read-only and adds useful behavioral context by listing the status categories and clarifying that it is for tracking an already-created submission, not for creating one.

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 compact sentences that front-load the action and status vocabulary while avoiding repetition of schema details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description tells the agent what statuses to expect and when to use it. Nothing needed to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already fully documents application_id at 100% coverage, including that it is the applicationId returned at creation. The description only adds 'by its id,' which does not materially extend the schema's parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check'), resource ('Pitch Protocol pitch application'), and scope ('by its id'), and enumerates the expected status values (draft | intake | submitted, plus research progress). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pitchprotocol_schema, which would focus on schema rather than application status.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to track a submission already created via Pitch Protocol's flow, giving a clear use context. It does not name an alternative or state a when-not condition, but for a narrow read-only status lookup the context is sufficient.

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