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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour beyond that: waiting is not a guarantee, there is no callback, hanging up does not cancel the request, at most 45 of the permitted seconds are actually used, and the `confirmed: true` flag has a specific meaning. However, it does not say anything about what happens if `request_id` is unknown or expired, nor about the shape of the response beyond the enumerated states.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded with the return-state vocabulary, which is exactly what an agent needs, and the waiting semantics follow immediately. The parenthetical enumerations and backticked tokens are dense but readable. The trailing paragraph quoting the server instructions ('results are candidates, not proof…') is largely generic boilerplate for a read-only status lookup and partially dilutes the focus.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it discharges this well by enumerating both delivery and outcome states along with the `confirmed` flag semantics. Waiting behaviour and re-polling are also covered. Minor gaps remain around error/unknown request IDs and the unexplained `request_id` parameter.

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 50% (only `wait_seconds` is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate, and it does partly: it explains that wait_seconds defaults to 0 = answer now and that at most 45 s are consumed even though the schema allows up to 60. `request_id` is still unexplained beyond its name — nothing says whose request ID it is or how one is obtained. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial compensation.

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 names the resource (a request to an owner) and states precisely what is returned: delivery state (`sent`, `link_given`, `expired`, `failed`) and the owner's outcome (`declined`, `other_time`, `available`, `confirmed`), with the crucial distinction that `available` means free but not booked. That is far more specific than the name alone. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not (e.g. request_to_owner vs order_status), so an agent must infer the boundary from the state vocabulary rather than from an explicit contrast.

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 gives clear polling guidance: `wait_seconds` defaults to 0 meaning answer now, and if the call returns while still waiting, the agent should call request_status again later, 'for example when the person asks'. It also sets expectations that waiting is not a promise of an answer and that nothing calls back. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer a different sibling tool (for example request_to_owner to create the request versus request_status to read it).

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