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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful cost note ('Does not spend credits'), which contextualizes it against credit-consuming siblings like ask_chatbot, but says nothing about what the status values are, whether incomplete training produces partial data, or response shape.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the cost caveat. Slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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?

For a simple read-only status lookup with one obvious param, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should hint at what is returned (status values, source entries) and the requirement that the chatbot exist. As written it leaves the return value entirely opaque.

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?

One parameter, chatbot_id, with 0% schema description coverage; the description never refers to it. The name and integer type make its meaning largely self-evident, but the description adds no guidance such as where the id comes from (e.g., list_chatbots).

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+resource: retrieves training status and sources for a single chatbot, which is clearly distinct from list_chatbots (plural listing) and create_chatbot (mutation). It does not mention what 'sources' concretely are, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers this is for checking training progress. There are no explicit when/when-not conditions, no mention of alternatives like list_chatbots for enumeration, and no prerequisites such as a chatbot needing to exist or be training.

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