Where does a Document Request stand

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: one call returns everything with no follow-up read needed, search may return multiple matches as a short list, and approval/rejection is intentionally outside the tool's capability. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded with the core trigger and purpose, then explains parameter usage, return completeness, and a key boundary. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to call it, how to identify the request, what the response contains, and what it cannot do. The optional parameter relationship is clearly explained, making the tool self-contained.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds practical usage semantics: request_id is preferred when known, while search matches title, Client name, or Client email and can yield multiple options. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 opens with a specific trigger and resource: 'Call this when the Professional asks where a Document Request stands.' It clearly enumerates what the tool returns—status, checklist, files with verdicts, and reminder state—making it distinct from siblings like create_request or download_documents.

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 gives explicit conditions: use this for status questions, provide the request id when known, or fall back to a search term matching title, Client name, or Client email. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use create_request instead', but the trigger context and the statement that no tool can approve/reject provide adequate guidance.

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