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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully reinforces this with 'Metadata only; it runs nothing', but adds nothing about how the lookup behaves when the action name is unknown or invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing returned fields, closed by the most decision-relevant fact ('runs nothing'). Dense but free of filler, with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return payload does not need describing, and the description still previews the returned fields. For a one-parameter read-only lookup the coverage is nearly sufficient; only the provenance of the 'action' value is missing.

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 0% for the single required 'action' parameter, so the description must carry the load. It only says 'One action's...', never explaining that 'action' is an identifier string, where to obtain it, or how the 200-char pattern-constrained format maps to real action names.

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?

Names a specific resource (one action) and enumerates exactly what is returned: input schema, effect, executing tool, confirmation rule, mode, owner page. The closing clause 'Metadata only; it runs nothing' sharply separates it from the mutating siblings like xora_cancel_action, though it never names xora_action_status or xora_capabilities explicitly.

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 is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect an action before invoking it, and the 'runs nothing' clause signals it is safe for reconnaissance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus xora_action_status, and no statement of where valid action identifiers come from.

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