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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: requests expire 15 minutes after preparation, expired ids surface as 'unknown', and a pending request is re-checked against the live order book. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and result states, then the source tools, then expiry semantics. The parenthetical list of five tools is dense but earns its place; the sentences carry little waste.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it specifies the two status values and the hash returned once signed, plus the expiry/unknown edge case. Nothing an agent needs to interpret a response is missing.

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 single 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema, including the sr_ prefix. The description only restates that the id comes from a prepare tool, adding no new format or syntax detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a sign request ... by its id') plus the concrete outcome states (pending or completed, order/transaction hash). It also names the five sibling prepare tools that produce the id, making it clearly distinguishable from get_transaction_status and the other get_* siblings.

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 makes the workflow explicit: this consumes an id returned by make_land_offer, list_land_for_sale, accept_land_offer, buy_land, or cancel_land_order. It stops short of contrasting with alternatives like get_transaction_status or stating when to poll vs. not, so it falls just below full routing guidance.

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