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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful context: the tool is for previously submitted routes and should be retried rather than treated as a submission mechanism. The 'never resubmit' warning is a meaningful behavioral safeguard beyond 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and resource, and the second adds essential operational guidance. Every word 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 low-complexity, read-only, idempotent status lookup with one required parameter, the description covers the essential workflow: given a Relay request ID, track the previously submitted route, and retry rather than resubmit. There is no output schema, and the description does not detail return statuses or error behavior, but the core decision an agent needs to make is well supported.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It clarifies that requestId is a 'Relay request ID' associated with a previously submitted cross-chain source route. It does not specify format or origin, but the single self-named parameter is simple enough that this level of context is sufficient for an agent to supply the correct value.

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 states a specific action ('Track') on a clear resource ('previously submitted cross-chain source route') identified by 'Relay request ID.' It accurately conveys this is a status/read tool and differentiates it from sibling submission tools like peer_cash_order and peer_cash_finalize, which would be used for new submissions.

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 explicit operational guidance: 'Retry this read; never resubmit from an unknown status.' This tells the agent when to call this tool (when polling or rechecking a previously submitted route) and when not to (rather than resubmitting an order/route when status is unknown). This is strong routing guidance even without naming a specific sibling.

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