get-user-status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: what the status consists of and, importantly, that it returns no status when none is set or when the status has expired — an edge case the agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the core resource and then layers the return semantics and the empty-result edge case. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to frame the call and flag edge cases, which it does including the no-status/expired case. The one remaining ambiguity is whose status is returned — the authenticated user's own, or another user's — which is not clarified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 and resource ("Get the user's status") and enumerates the payload fields — message, emoji, end time, notification/Karma pause flags — so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling set-user-status by the read verb, but never names or contrasts that sibling 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: an agent infers it should call this when it needs the current status display for the user. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on calling it versus user-info, and no mention that the counterpart mutation is set-user-status.

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