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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond that: it explains what the status answers (sent, when, live) and that route-change counts can be included, which helps the agent understand the return semantics even without an output 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core question, then adds the optional parameter note and a brief API endpoint. All content is relevant, though the endpoint line is metadata that could be trimmed.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description sufficiently explains what information is retrieved and how to control it via the optional parameters. It does not detail response formatting details, but none are required to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the date-omission default and that includeRouteChanges counts added/modified/removed routes, adding only marginal detail beyond the schema's own text; baseline 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?

The description states a specific resource (dispatch status) and precisely enumerates what is checked: whether routes and customer notifications were sent to drivers, when, and whether they are live. This distinguishes it from planning-focused siblings like get_planning_status and routing-focused ones like get_routes.

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 implied by the stated purpose—checking dispatch status—and a default rule is given ('Omit date for the currently live date'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of get_planning_status or get_routes, and no exclusions.

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