get_mcp_operation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses 'read-only' and 'Credits: 0', which is genuine behavioral value, but it omits operation-status semantics (pending vs complete/terminal states) and any auth expectations that matter for a polling tool.

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?

Two compact clauses with the purpose front-loaded and the cost/read-only fact appended. No waste, though extremely terse for an operation-status tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out. However, with no annotations and 0% param coverage, the description is thin: it does not clarify the polling/async nature of the operation or what a status result implies.

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 0% and the single operation_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description's 'one of your write operations' only implicitly signals that operation_id references a prior write call; it adds no format or sourcing detail to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (retrieve status/result) and resource (a write operation), scoped to 'one of your write operations'. It clearly reads as an operation-status lookup, which none of the siblings duplicate. It stops short of naming a sibling or distinguishing itself explicitly.

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 phrase 'one of your write operations' implies this is used to poll an operation you previously triggered, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to, and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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