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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the possible status values and noting that deposit/settle transaction hashes appear 'once available', which helps an agent understand the state progression.

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 sentence that front-loads the core operation, immediately specifies the id source, and packs the complete status vocabulary plus the tx-hash detail. No filler or redundant restatement of the annotations or schema.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the input origin, enumerates every possible status value, and flags the additional tx-hash fields that will appear. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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?

The schema only defines 'id' as a required string with no description, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It does so by saying the status is looked up 'by id (from create_instant_shift)', clarifying that the id is the one returned by the creation tool.

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 clearly identifies the resource: status of an instant shift looked up by id, and distinguishes this from the creation tool by referencing 'from create_instant_shift'. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but combined with the title the purpose 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?

The parenthetical 'from create_instant_shift' implies this tool is used after creating an instant shift and passing its id, giving useful context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative routes.

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