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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, so credit goes to what's added: the definition of 'interrupted' as approval started but the page closed, and the instruction to verify in GBPly before retrying. It does not mention result ordering, pagination, or what the limit bounds are, leaving some operational gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the state enumeration leads, and the parameter modes close. The parenthetical on 'interrupted' is the only elaboration and it earns its place by preventing a false retry.

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 should clarify what a call returns, and it only implies a status value per request without saying what the list mode yields or how 'limit' behaves. Adequate for selecting the tool, but incomplete for calling it confidently in list mode.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It fully explains request_id (single vs omitted list mode) but never mentions the 'limit' parameter at all, leaving half the surface undocumented in both schema and prose.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('check whether requests you created were approved...') with a full enumeration of the outcome states, including the non-obvious 'interrupted' case. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling request_* tools, which create requests rather than report their status.

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?

Explicitly states both invocation modes: 'Pass request_id for one request, or omit it to list the user's recent requests.' It also gives actionable follow-up guidance ('check GBPly before retrying') for the interrupted state. No explicit exclusion naming a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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