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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Show' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm it has no side effects. It does add useful context about the content of the status (phases, next steps), but stops short of a full disclosure of safety or side-effect profile.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. The em dash adds detail without bloat, and every word earns its place. There is no extraneous information.

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 status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough to convey what the tool does and what information it returns. It could have noted that it is safe to call at any time or should be used after provision_start, but this is not essential for basic understanding.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered by default. The description introduces no parameter-specific semantics, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('current provisioning state'), and adds what it reports ('which phases are complete, what to do next'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like provision_start and provision_resume, which are mutating operations.

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 clearly implies it is for checking the status of provisioning, especially after starting or resuming. It offers context for when to use it ('which phases are complete, what to do next') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as saying 'use provision_start to initiate provisioning'.

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