check_status

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 the return content (status, tracking info, delivery date) which is helpful, but doesn't mention error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by return details. Zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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?

Given a simple tool with 1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error cases).

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 clearly states the specific action ('check the delivery status'), the resource ('previously sent postcard'), and distinguishes it from siblings like send_postcard (which creates) and check_balance/get_pricing (which are unrelated). It uses precise verbs and scope.

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 implies usage context ('previously sent postcard') and references send_postcard as the source of the ID, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings like bulk_send.

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