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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping about which kinds of async work are supported, which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but it does not discuss response format, possible statuses, or other runtime behavior.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds the key alternative. There is no redundant or filler 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 tool, the description plus the fully documented schema gives the agent what it needs to invoke correctly. It lacks an explicit description of the returned status payload, but the core use case and disambiguation from get_report_request_status are covered.

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 100%, and the schema already explains requestId, workspaceRef, portfolioRef, and transactionId. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning requestId in the prose, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource: checking the status of background wallet syncs, rule applications, or transaction changes via requestId. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_report_request_status, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 clearly states when to use the tool (to check status via requestId) and provides an explicit alternative for report exports (get_report_request_status). This gives the agent direct routing guidance rather than leaving it to infer.

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