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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool requires a secret token and returns an opaque receipt, which is useful. However, it does not detail what the receipt looks like or any potential errors, but this is acceptable given the annotations.

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 sentences, both meaningful. The key constraint (requires secret token) and the return type are front-loaded. No verbose language.

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 parameter, the description covers the essential use case and constraints. It lacks detail on error cases or output format, but given the simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description must fully explain the parameter. It mentions the requestToken is a secret and used to check the request, but does not explain its format or origin. This is a gap, but the schema pattern provides some guidance.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to check whether a prepared request was sent, and it is distinguished from siblings by mentioning it requires a secret requestToken and returns an opaque receipt. It could be more specific about the resource, but it is clear and differentiates from siblings like prepare_contact_request.

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 specifies when to use this tool (to check if a prepared request was sent) and implies it is used after preparation. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context makes it clear this is for checking status, not for creating or fetching details.

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