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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return statuses, the fact that it is a read-only feedback loop, and that it costs no token. It could mention error behavior or what happens with an invalid request_id, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 front-load the main purpose and immediately provide the statuses and source of the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, including the cost note.

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 status-check tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, return values, and cost. It lacks details about failure cases or output structure, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that request_id comes from request_pattern, giving the parameter meaningful provenance beyond the bare schema definition.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('what happened to a pattern you requested'), and ties it to request_pattern's request_id. It also names the exact statuses returned, which makes the tool's job unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like request_pattern.

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?

It explicitly says the input comes from request_pattern's request_id, so the intended workflow is clear: use this after requesting a pattern. It doesn't enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple 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.