get_cleared_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It offers only thin hints: the reference to 'same payload as lookup_merchant' and 'probe=false' imply it executes a check variant, but it never says what the payload contains, whether the operation is read-only, what error/not-found behavior occurs, or how 'cleared status' is represented. An agent cannot infer the return shape without going to look up lookup_merchant.

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 sentence with the core purpose front-loaded before the routing note, so it is efficient and earns its place. The downside is density: the parenthetical '(Check, probe=false)' packs in unexplained jargon that forces the reader to parse technical shorthand, slightly hurting readability despite the brevity.

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 tool with one documented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent should expect, and it falls short. It reveals nothing about the payload contents, the meaning of 'cleared status', or the semantics of 'probe=false'. An agent evaluating whether this tool satisfies its goal is left to investigate lookup_merchant merely to understand the return value.

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 single parameter 'slug' is fully documented in the schema with an example ('coinbase-identity'), so coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify accepted formats, normalization, or the relationship between slug and domain. It neither compensates for a gap nor adds value, so it stays at the baseline.

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 does state a verb and resource ('Cleared status for a slug/domain') and distinguishes itself by name-checking lookup_merchant, which separates it from siblings like cleared_check and get_trust_score. However, the parenthetical '(Check, probe=false)' is cryptic jargon that muddies what the tool actually does, and the claim 'same payload as lookup_merchant' leaves it ambiguous whether this returns the full lookup payload or only a cleared-status field. The core purpose is recoverable but not crisp.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer lookup_merchant in new agent loops.' This clearly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and names the preferred alternative, which is valuable given the crowded sibling list. The gap is that it never states the conditions under which this tool SHOULD be used (it implies legacy/backward-compat only), and it does not explain WHY lookup_merchant is preferred.

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