rotation_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it warns that a timeout does not mean nothing happened and that this tool should be used to resolve ambiguity. This is useful behavioral guidance not present in the schema or annotations.

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 short sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is stated in a compact, memorable imperative. Every word earns 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?

For a simple read-only status tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose and the critical timing context. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the low complexity makes this acceptable.

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 gives only a generic `id` with a hex pattern and no description. The phrase 'transaction outcome' lets an agent infer that `id` is the transaction identifier, but the description never explicitly connects the parameter to the transaction. This is minimally adequate but not fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Read transaction outcome.' This clearly differentiates it from the mutation-oriented rotation_execute and from pool_status, which covers pool state rather than transaction outcome.

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?

'Use after any timeout; never assume no change' gives explicit timing guidance for when to call this tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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