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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description is free to add the parts annotations cannot express: the enumerated outcome space (done, still running, refused with reason, not received, unclear), the cost ('Checking is free'), and the caveat that 'unclear' is a legitimate designed outcome for saves and exports rather than an error. It also explains the remedy for 'unclear' (inspect the item itself), which prevents a pointless retry loop.

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 core condition and the sibling routing come first, which is the right ordering, and every sentence carries operational content. It runs a bit long with four separate topics packed in, and the trailing docs URL is filler for an agent that cannot browse, but nothing is redundant.

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 single-parameter status check with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to call it, the meaning of each terminal state, how to react to each state, and the cost. The output schema carries the return shape, so nothing is left dangling.

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 schema already gives the example act_3f2a9c, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint beyond the schema: the parameter must be the action_id specifically, and only from an earlier ambiguous answer — useful in an API where campaign, list, export and inbox IDs all coexist.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('Find out how an earlier change ended') and pins down the exact triggering condition: an earlier answer returned an action_id instead of a clear result. It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming argorant_list_status, argorant_export_status and argorant_get_campaign as the tools for lists, exports and campaigns.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Use it only with such an action_id'), routes the agent to three named alternatives for adjacent use cases, and prescribes follow-up actions: repeat only when not received or after fixing a refusal reason. That is a full when-to-use / when-not-to-use / what-next loop rather than an implied one.

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