q402_request_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only, no API key,' lists the returned fields (amount, token, chain, recipient, status), and explicitly notes that 'An unknown or expired id returns notFound:true (no throw).' This is transparent and helps the agent anticipate outcomes without guessing.

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 sentences, direct and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return details, usage guidance, and error handling. No redundant wording or unnecessary padding.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, auth requirements, use cases, and error behavior. It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the parameter is a 'req_ id' returned by q402_request_create and that unknown/expired ids yield notFound:true, which complements the schema's pattern description.

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 states the tool's function: 'Look up a Q402 payment request by its req_ id.' It specifies the resource (payment request) and the verb (look up), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like q402_request_pay and q402_request_create by focusing on status retrieval rather than creation or payment.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use it to poll a request you created, or to inspect a requestId before paying it with q402_request_pay.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and references an alternative (q402_request_pay), while also explaining behavior for unknown/expired ids.

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