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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It opens with 'Read-only,' which covers the safety profile, and discloses edge-case behavior with 'Returns a not-found result if no model matches the provided name.' It also notes that completion date is included only 'when available,' providing useful conditional 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: what is returned, when to use it, which alternatives to use instead, and not-found behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the expected output fields, the not-found case, and proper routing to sibling tools for different user intents.

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%, and the buildName parameter is already well documented with examples and guidance to use list_builds or list_model_slugs when the name is unknown. The tool description itself adds little beyond that, so the schema carries the semantic weight, putting this at the baseline.

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 a specific action ('Returns') and resource ('current build status for one sailing-ship model'), and lists the exact output fields. It also names sibling tools get_build_details and list_builds, so an agent can distinguish this tool without reading their schemas.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user asks specifically for the status of one known model.' It also gives clear alternatives: list_builds for browsing/comparing/filtering multiple models and get_build_details for background, technical notes, and build-log parts.

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