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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It lists return components but does not state whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, or whether it has side effects. Read-only is implied by 'status' but not explicit.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the resource, and uses a compact list to describe return components. No redundant text, but it is extremely terse and may be under-specified for the tool's purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior and return structure. It lists components but does not explain what they mean or when to use the tool, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

Zero parameters; schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds no parameter information because there are none, so baseline 4 applies.

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?

Description names the resource ('convoy status') and lists specific return components (per-agent states, sequence, at-risk list, meter). However, it lacks a verb and does not differentiate from siblings like convoy_readiness or convoy_screen, so an agent cannot easily tell which status-related tool to use.

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 guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no conditions for calling this tool vs other convoy_* siblings. Implied usage only from the name and return list.

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