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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description earns credit for genuinely new behavioral context: 'building' is a normal intermediate state, polling should be suppressed via keepPolling, and a sent status yields a quote link and price summary.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler: identity and states first, prerequisites second, polling behavior third, return content last. Information is front-loaded in the order an agent needs it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still flags the one case that matters (sent returns the quote link and price summary). Combined with the state enumeration and polling rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema: although only serviceRequestId is marked required, the description tells the agent that phone or email must also be supplied to authenticate the lookup. It does not explain the preferred-phone rule that the schema itself carries.

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 the status of an existing Detritus quote request') and enumerates the possible states (received, assigned, building, sent), which pins down exactly what is returned. It is easily distinguished from siblings like make_service_request (creates) or get_quote (fetches quote content).

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 clear invocation context: requires serviceRequestId plus the phone or email from the original request, and explicitly says not to re-call within the same turn when keepPolling is true. It does not name an alternative tool for adjacent needs (e.g., retrieving the quote itself via get_quote), so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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