get_fax_statusCheck delivery status of a SendaFax job. Use after send_fax or when the user asks whether the fax went through or for a receipt. You get an email receipt when it delivers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fax_id | Yes | SendaFax job id returned by send_fax. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one extra behavioral detail—that an email receipt arrives on delivery—but does not explain returned status values or polling behavior.
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 main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and receipt behavior each earn their place.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers when to call it and what user questions it answers. A full list of status values would be helpful, but the absence of an output schema does not make the description inadequate.
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% and the single fax_id parameter is already described as the SendaFax job id returned by send_fax. The description reinforces the relationship to send_fax but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check delivery status of a SendaFax job.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_coverage and send_fax by tying the tool to post-send status checks.
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 explicitly says to use it after send_fax or when the user asks whether the fax went through or wants a receipt. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives, but the primary usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: checking destination coverage, sending a fax, and checking delivery status. There is no meaningful overlap or risk of selecting the wrong tool for a given step.
All tool names follow the same lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_coverage, get_fax_status, send_fax. The naming is predictable and aligns well with each tool's function.
Three tools is an appropriate size for this focused server: a coverage precheck, a send operation, and a status lookup. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat.
The tools cover the full outbound fax lifecycle: verify coverage, send the fax, and check delivery status. No critical operation appears to be missing for the stated fax-sending domain.