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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that skipped wakes are included in recent_wakes ('never silent') and detailing the kill-threshold fields and auto-kill reason. This clarifies what data the agent can expect and why, without contradicting any annotations.

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 effectively structured: a concise summary line, then a breakdown of returned fields, then a workflow note. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds meaningful detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan. No redundant or filler content.

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 description thoroughly covers return values and purpose, but it omits parameter semantics entirely and gives only a brief usage context. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or how recent_limit affects output. While the output schema exists and could cover return details, the parameter gap and lack of explicit alternative guidance leave the description incomplete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of documenting parameters. However, it mentions none of the three parameters (wallet_address, caller_id, recent_limit). It doesn't explain that recent_limit controls the number of recent_wakes entries, what caller_id is for, or that wallet_address is required. This is a major gap.

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 the tool returns wake-on-condition consent and usage status, enumerating the specific fields (opted_in, daily_wake_budget, wakes_used_today, skips_today, recent_wakes, kill threshold state). The verb 'get' plus the resource 'OODA status' is specific and distinct from related tools like set_ooda_consent, which is about changing consent, not observing it.

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 includes a workflow hint: 'status/observe step -- check this to see whether the background worker is watching, and what it did (or skipped) recently.' This provides clear context for when to use it, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It names no sibling tools or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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