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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds nothing further—no note on auth requirements, missing-ID behavior (404?), or response shape. With annotations present the bar is lower, but there is essentially zero added context.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the duplicate route sentence and the boilerplate operation-ID line waste space without adding information. It is brief without being informative.

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-record lookup with nested params, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves too much unsaid: return contents, ID format, and the role of the query object are all undisclosed. An agent could call it but could not predict what it gets back.

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% and there are two parameters (a free-form 'query' object and 'params.id'). The description only implies that 'id' is the target record's identifier via the path template, adding no constraints, format, or explanation of what the 'query' object accepts.

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 is just the route string repeated verbatim ("GET /api/support/status/:id. GET /api/support/status/:id."), which restates the title rather than explaining what the endpoint returns or how it differs from siblings like get_support_status_38abab7d0aa6d2240ccc1e3b or get_support_status_uptime. Only the ':id' segment hints that a single status record is fetched.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given; the only hint is that describe_operation 'provides native request schemas,' which tells the agent where to find schema info but not when this tool should be selected over the many support and status siblings.

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