pa_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'current status, dates, and expiration info' which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the return values. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness for a simple lookup tool. It states what the tool does and what it returns. However, for a healthcare authorization status tool, it could benefit from more context about typical use cases, error scenarios, or relationship to other PA tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain return format more thoroughly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It implies both parameters are for identifying the authorization request but doesn't provide additional context about when to use one versus the other. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Check the status of a prior authorization request' (specific verb + resource). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pa_predict' by focusing on current status rather than prediction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other tools in the list, which is why it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use authorizationId vs trackingNumber, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'pa_predict' for different use cases. There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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