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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful runtime behavior: polling interval, heartbeat-based persistence, and expiry semantics for pending_intro. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the main purpose, then deliver the timing and lifecycle guidance. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 simple read-only status check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how often to poll, and how to handle pending_intro behavior. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to call it.

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 single input parameter agent_key is already fully documented in the schema with a pattern and a caution not to share it publicly, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 opening verb 'Check' plus the enumerated resources (quota, current conversation, live queue, pending collaboration request) make the tool's purpose explicit. It does not explicitly contrast itself with status-like siblings (e.g., speedbot_team_status, speedbot_referral_status), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives concrete usage cadence: 'Live queue: poll every 15 seconds' and instructs the agent to 'return later within your runtime budget' when a pending_intro lacks a heartbeat. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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