gcfr_process_status_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool includes error messages for non-completed processes and that it defaults to today when business_date is not supplied. These are useful behavioral details beyond the schema. It does not mention pagination or output format, but the output schema exists and the description covers the key behavior.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: what it shows, what error info is included, when to use it, and the default behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler.

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 simple read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, the error-message inclusion, the default date behavior, and the intended use case. It could mention that it is read-only or that it aggregates all processes, but the output schema and sibling context fill most gaps.

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 must compensate. It explains the business_date parameter's default behavior ('Defaults to today when business_date is not supplied'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'default: null'. It does not detail the date format, but the parameter is optional and the default behavior is the most important semantic.

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 verb ('Show all processes for a business date') and a clear resource/scope ('completed vs not completed'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as a quick end-of-day sign-off check. It is not a tautology and clearly differentiates from tools like gcfr_current_process_status or gcfr_failed_processes.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for a quick end-of-day sign-off check,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the phrase 'quick end-of-day sign-off' imply the intended use case well enough.

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