tool_get_optimization_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only status check and lists what is returned, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, completed optimizations, or polling expectations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists the return fields.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the return fields do not need extensive explanation. However, with no annotations, the description is missing useful context about when a status check is appropriate and how this relates to fetching final optimization results.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. The single parameter optimization_id is evident from the schema and name, and the description references 'a running optimization,' but it never explicitly defines optimization_id or explains where to obtain it.

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 states a specific action ('Check the status') and a specific resource ('a running optimization'), and lists the returned data fields. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_optimization_results and get_backtest_status, though it does not explicitly call out 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is only for optimizations, not backtests, or that results should be retrieved separately via get_optimization_results.

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