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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description's "Read-only" restates that but adds a genuine behavioral fact an agent cannot get from annotations: the identity proof required (email or phone on file) and the privacy guarantee that customer details are never returned. Output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the read-only nature and the primary requirement front-loaded before the caveat about returned data.

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 3-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, preconditions, identity requirement and a data-privacy note. Only minor gaps remain (no mention of error behavior when identity doesn't match, no acceptance format for email/phone).

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning — and it does the most important work: it restates the `anyOf` requirement in plain language ("requires the request_id and either the email or the phone number given on the request"). It adds no format or validation hints for email/phone, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 ("returns the current status of a request") and anchors it to the sibling `request_quotes` that creates those requests, so the agent can place it in the workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with `get_coverage`, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for invocation: the caller must supply request_id plus either the email or the phone used at creation time. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming alternatives such as `get_coverage`, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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