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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description explains that writes are processed asynchronously and that the reply may contain the final result, an in-progress status, or a failure. This adds meaningful behavioral context for a status-report tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then explains the required input and expected reply states in two efficient sentences. The endpoint reference is brief and useful rather than wasteful.

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?

With one required parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough completeness by explaining the async context and the possible reply outcomes. An agent can call it correctly without additional clarification.

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 schema already has 100% description coverage for the single request_id parameter, and the description largely restates that it comes from a write reply. It adds modest context by noting which write tool returned it, but does not add syntax or validation details beyond the schema.

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 operation and resource: retrieving the outcome of an earlier asynchronous write request. It clearly distinguishes this request-report tool from sibling get/list tools by tying it to write requests and request_id values.

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 says to use the tool after a write request by passing the request_id returned by the write tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the usage context strong but not fully exhaustive.

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