get_factory_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read. The description adds useful context about what state is covered and that it should be checked before modifications, but it does not describe response format, freshness, or permission requirements.

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 with no wasted text: the first lists the status content, and the second gives operational guidance. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter read 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the status includes and when to call it. It could be slightly more explicit about return values, but it is broadly complete for the complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rules. Schema coverage is also 100%, leaving no undocumented parameter semantics for the description to carry.

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 lists the state domains (profile, frequency, account, queue) and implies a read operation before changes, but it never explicitly says the tool returns or retrieves factory status. An agent can infer the purpose, but the verb+resource statement is missing.

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?

It gives clear usage context: check the current state before making changes. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the when-to-use signal is explicit enough for this read-only status tool.

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