directory_status

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 does disclose a useful behavioral fact — the call is free — and the phrasing implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about auth requirements, polling behavior, or what a 'status' value can be. The doubled '(free) (free)' also suggests the field was appended mechanically rather than authored with care.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the key constraint (id) placed where the agent reads first. It loses a point for the duplicated '(free) (free)' trailing tag, which is dead weight.

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 single-param read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. It still omits the practical context an agent needs — whether the review is async and needs re-polling, and what statuses to expect — so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself tells the agent the id comes from directory-submit. The description only restates 'by id', adding no format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Check) and resource (review status of a directory submission), with the lookup key (id). It is distinguishable from its closest siblings directory_submit and directory_activate, though it never names them 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?

Usage is only implied: you check status after a submission. There is no statement of when to poll, how often, or why one would use this instead of directory_activate or status_json, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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