Check a Zendesk feature's lifecycle status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world call, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by disclosing the internal behavior: it searches three source classes (Help Center, developer docs, change feeds) and can surface conflicting sources alongside a preferred one, which tells the agent how much to trust the result.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the composite nature and usage examples before the mechanics of sources and return shape. Nothing is wasted, though the run-on second sentence could be split for readability.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing returns, enumerating the verdict vocabulary (current/future/beta/eap/deprecated/legacy/retired) and the preferred/conflicting source field. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained locale parameter and no note on latency or source-freshness limits.

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 schema documents 'feature' but leaves 'locale' with only a regex pattern and no explanation, and the description says nothing about either parameter. With coverage around 50%, the description was expected to compensate for the undocumented locale (e.g., that it controls document language) but does not.

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?

States a specific action (composite lookup) and a specific resource (a Zendesk feature's lifecycle status), with concrete example questions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_help_center or get_developer_page because it aggregates them into a single verdict rather than returning raw documents.

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 example questions ('Is offset pagination deprecated?', 'Is Copilot GA?') give a strong signal of when this tool is the right entry point instead of the underlying search tools. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it (e.g., for reading a specific doc, use get_help_article), so routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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