data_check_status

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

The description ('Check the status') aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a safe read operation. However, it does not add any behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as authentication requirements or rate limits. Since annotations already provide the safety profile, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It is concise and to the point, earning its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema (indicated) and moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the role of optional parameters or what the status response contains beyond 'status'. Parameter coverage is minimal, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has three parameters (order_id, payment_id, transaction_id) with 0% schema coverage in the description. The description only mentions 'order ID', leaving the purpose of payment_id and transaction_id unexplained. With such low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so adequately.

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 states the verb 'check', the resource 'status of a data bundle payment or purchase', and the key identifier 'order ID'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'momo_check_status' (mobile money) and 'track_order' (general orders) by specifying the data bundle context.

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 implies that this tool should be used when an order ID for a data bundle payment or purchase is available, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'momo_check_status' or 'track_order'. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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