get_boost_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 indicates a read-only operation via 'check,' but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects or disclose the response format or behavior for invalid IDs. The behavior is adequately implied but not thoroughly detailed.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Check') and includes all relevant details (what is checked, for which server). It is efficient with no wasted words.

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 status check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the input (server ID) and explicitly lists the output components (boost status, verified badge level, sponsorship expiration), leaving no major gaps.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter 'id' with a clear description, and the tool description repeats the 'by ID' context. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks boost status, verified badge level, and sponsorship expiration for a specific MCP server by ID. This uses a specific verb ('check') and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like boost_mcp_server (action) and get_boost_pricing (pricing).

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?

The description implies the tool is used to check current boost status, verified badge level, and sponsorship expiration. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, such as when checking before boosting or comparing with get_boost_pricing.

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