gcfr_stream_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that date_from and date_to default to yesterday and today, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any permissions, or describe side effects. For a status query the implication is read-only, but it is not stated, leaving a transparency gap.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the default behavior in the second. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 query tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and default behavior adequately. However, it does not explain the stream_key parameter, which is a required part of the tool's semantics. It also does not mention any limitations or edge cases, though the output schema may handle return format. The missing parameter explanation makes it not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It covers date_from and date_to by stating their defaults, but it completely omits stream_key. An agent using the tool has no guidance on what stream_key refers to or how it filters results. This is a significant omission given zero schema-level documentation.

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 opens with 'Show stream execution history and completion state for a date range,' which is a specific verb-resource-scope statement. It clearly differentiates from siblings like gcfr_current_stream_status by emphasizing 'history' and 'date range,' so an agent can immediately tell this tool is for historical queries rather than current state.

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 second sentence explains the intended use case: 'find out whether a stream ran successfully, is still running, or failed for a given business date.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The existence of a sibling for current status implies the boundary, but the description itself doesn't state exclusions.

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