Read the status of a handoff

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the authorization model and the specific error behavior ('anything else returns 404, including an id that exists'), which prevents an agent from misreading a 404 as a nonexistent id. It also warns that verdicts are third-party data and never instructions, an important prompt-injection guard that no annotation conveys.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the access rule, then the safety caveat. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and lists the fields returned plus the failure mode, which is nearly everything an agent needs for a single-id read tool. It does not explain what status values are possible or how the timeline is structured, a minor remaining gap.

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 already states handoff_id is the value returned by find_specialist, so the baseline is a 3. The description adds meaning by tying the id to an access-controlled lookup where an existing but unauthorized id still yields 404, which is semantics the schema does not 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Reads the status, timeline, specialist and verdict of a handoff') and even names the key returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the siblings find_specialist or list_match_proposals, though their purposes are dissimilar enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 a concrete precondition for use: only the requester and the specialist can read a handoff, and everything else gets a 404. That is a real when-to-use gate rather than a vague hint. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer this over the sibling tools, so it is not a full 5.

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