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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent read, lowering the bar. Beyond that, the description discloses the status lifecycle (new -> confirmed -> fixing -> shipped) and the public-credit consequence of shipping, which are genuinely useful behavioral facts not present in annotations or schema.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences that each carry information: the state machine and the input source/follow-up rationale. Slight redundancy in the trailing benefit clause keeps it from a 5.

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 output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the possible status values a caller will see and the payoff of checking. It omits any mention of error behavior for an invalid report_id, leaving a minor gap for a single-param lookup tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents report_id. The description reinforces the parameter's origin (post_agent_feedback) but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (status of Agent Workshop bug report or idea), and enumerates the status states, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling post_agent_feedback that creates reports.

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?

Says exactly what input to use ('Pass the report_id from post_agent_feedback') and why ('Use this to follow up'), giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool to avoid, so it falls just short of a 5.

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