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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states a permission constraint (management token) and implies a read operation ('status'), but does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, error conditions, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it is a fragment and lacks additional structured detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core function and scope but omits any return format, error handling, or explicit indication of read-only behavior. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 has one parameter 'id' with an empty description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly explain that the 'id' parameter identifies the resource, only referencing 'any resource you hold the management token for.' This provides minimal, indirect meaning.

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 indicates the tool returns the status of a resource, with a specific scope (resources for which the agent holds a management token). It distinguishes from siblings by this token condition, though it doesn't name alternatives. The grammar is a fragment but meaning is clear.

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 the tool should be used when the agent needs the status of a resource it holds a management token for. It provides a prerequisite (token) but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. This qualifies as implied usage.

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