Coarse status of a filing by document id: awaiting_signature, awaiting_payment, filed, delivered, or unknown. Returns no personal information, addresses, or amounts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docId | Yes | The docId returned by start_filing |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns only a coarse status and explicitly guarantees no personal information, addresses, or amounts, which is valuable privacy/scope context. It does not mention potential errors or authentication, but for a simple read-only status check the disclosure is sufficient.
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, front-loads the purpose, and adds the privacy caveat without unnecessary elaboration. Every phrase earns its 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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, and the description enumerates all possible return statuses, so the agent can interpret results. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but the 'unknown' status and clear docId dependency make it sufficiently complete.
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?
The schema already fully describes the single docId parameter and its provenance from start_filing, so description-level parameter detail is not critical. The description adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.
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 ('get') with a clear resource ('coarse status of a filing') and identifies the lookup key ('by document id'). It enumerates possible status values, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like start_filing and check_property_tax_savings.
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 implies this is used after a filing has been started, since it queries status by document id and the schema notes docId comes from start_filing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions/conditions.
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 purpose: checking eligibility, starting a filing, and checking filing status. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (check_property_tax_savings, get_filing_status, start_filing), making the intent predictable.
Three tools perfectly cover the narrow domain of property tax filing: check eligibility, start filing, and monitor status. Each tool is necessary and well-scoped.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: eligibility check with a continuation token, starting the filing, and retrieving coarse status. No obvious gaps for the intended workflow.