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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool handles 'pending' requests, suggesting read-only behavior, but it does not disclose whether repeated calls are safe, what happens for non-pending requests, or any side effects. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand instantly.

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 one-parameter tool with clear schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits guidance on what the response looks like (no output schema) and does not distinguish itself from provision_status, which could confuse an agent selecting between similar tools.

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 100%, and the parameter description for request_id already explains its origin and the 'saved request' fallback. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('status of a pending WireGuard IP provisioning request'), which clearly defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_email_config or get_health_status by focusing on WireGuard IP provisioning.

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 implies the tool is used after requesting an IP (via request_email_ip), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like provision_status. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative choices, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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