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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating the statuses returned and disclosing the auth requirement ('Needs a key or a sign-in'), which is material for invocation.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The core meaning—what statuses are included—is front-loaded, and the auth note is an essential second sentence.

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?

Given the low parameter count, rich annotations, and existing output schema, the description provides the key information an agent needs: what data is shown and that authentication is required. It stops short of explicitly steering the agent away from sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough for most cases.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, limit, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the status of applications requested by the key owner's agent, and lists the possible statuses. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like request_application and key_status, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns'.

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 implies when to use this tool—when checking the status of requested applications—and notes the auth prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like key_status or request_application, so an agent must infer the right context.

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