etabs_analysis_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful content-level detail that the response includes run flags and lock state, but says nothing about staleness, refresh timing, or whether it reflects queued vs executed cases.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main subject (per-case analysis status) before the secondary items. The '(not run / finished ...)' ellipsis is slightly sloppy but does convey the value domain efficiently.

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, return-value detail need not be spelled out, and a zero-parameter read-only query is inherently simple. The remaining gap is routing context against the many status/analysis siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, which per the rubric establishes a baseline of 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter guidance is needed or missing here.

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 names a specific resource (per-case analysis status) and enumerates what it returns: status values, run flags, and model lock state. It is clearly a read-only inspection tool, distinct from run_analysis or job_status, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement about calling it before/after etabs_run_analysis, and no differentiation from the nearby etabs_job_status or etabs_status tools. The agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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