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

With readOnlyHint already covering the safety profile, the description goes further and enumerates every terminal outcome (processed + groupId, rejected + reason, archived, not_found) plus the hint that not_found may mean still-processing. This effectively substitutes for the absent output schema and is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

A single dense sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and then unpacks the status codes; every clause carries information. The nested parentheticals make it slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted enumeration would.

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 two-parameter read-only status lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the outcome vocabulary, the meaning of the rejection message, and the endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 both project_id and notice_id are already documented in the schema, including the notice-id origin. The description repeats the notice-id provenance but adds no new format, constraint, or source detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+scope: check the processing outcome of a reported error identified by notice id. It is clearly distinct from siblings like airbrake_list_notices or airbrake_get_group, and it even names the underlying API route for precision.

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?

Explains the precondition for use — the notice id must come from Airbrake's create-notice API response — which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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