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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: an authorization rule ('the status is given only to the person who sent it'), the full set of possible status values, and the provenance of the request record. It does not describe what happens when the contact does not match (error vs empty result), which would have completed the behavioral picture.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the enumeration of states, then the required inputs and access rule. Every clause carries information; the parenthetical channel list and the state list are slightly dense but not 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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the state vocabulary an agent needs to interpret results and the identity requirement needed to call it correctly. The only gap is failure behavior when the contact does not match the request.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema (country-code phone or e-mail; request number as returned at submission). The description reinforces the matching requirement between contact and request but adds no format, validation or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource (a previously submitted request) and its outcome dimension (received, taken by a lawyer, in contact, in progress, ordered, closed), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It also clarifies that requests originate from request_quote, start_company_registration, the website or a phone call, implicitly separating it from those creation siblings. It stops short of a crisp 'Get the status of...' verb phrasing and never explicitly contrasts with a sibling.

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?

Usage context is clear: check this when a request was sent earlier and the sender wants to know where it stands. It also states the prerequisite that both the request number and the contact used in that request are required, which is a real gating condition. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given.

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