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

Annotations are missing altogether, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention side effects (likely read-only), error conditions, or what 'status' means in output. It doesn't disclose whether the tool is safe to call multiple times or if it requires additional context. For a tool that appears to be a query, the lack of any behavioral details is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise – a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the key word 'Status.' However, it may be under-specified rather than elegantly concise; every word is meaningful but doesn't add enough context. It is not a tautology, but it lacks the depth needed for a well-rounded definition. The structure is fine, but the substance is thin.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't describe the return value format, possible status values, or error scenarios. It also doesn't hint at any dependencies (like a mission needing to exist). For an agent to correctly call this tool, it needs to know what to provide for 'mission' and what to expect back. The description is too sparse.

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, 'mission', of type string. Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the property description is absent. The main description says 'Status of a placed mission,' which implies that the 'mission' parameter identifies the placed mission. This adds some semantic context (that a mission must be placed). However, it doesn't clarify the format of the mission identifier (e.g., ID, name) or any restrictions. With a single required parameter, the baseline is 3, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the name, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Status of a placed mission.' states a clear subject ('mission') and a state ('status'), but it lacks a specific verb. It doesn't clarify whether the tool retrieves, updates, or lists the status. The description is minimal but not a pure tautology; it does convey that the tool pertains to the status of a mission. Given the siblings (capabilities, check_feasibility, order), it's not clear how this tool differs from them beyond being about mission status.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't state when to check mission status, prerequisites (e.g., mission must be placed), or alternatives. Since 'order' and 'check_feasibility' likely relate to mission lifecycle, there is no explicit differentiation. The only hint is the word 'placed,' implying it's for existing missions, but that's not made explicit.

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