get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description only says the summary is 'computed by the backend', which discloses nothing about what the status contains, whether it is cached/live, or any permissions required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the 'status summary' actually returns, and it does not. Combined with an undocumented username parameter and no usage guidance, the definition is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the single 'username' parameter is never mentioned in the description. With only one optional param and no schema prose, the description should explain what omitting username does (e.g. defaults to the caller) 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 verb ('Read') and a resource ('profile status summary'), which is clearer than a tautology, but 'status summary' is left undefined and 'computed by the backend' adds no discriminating detail. Nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_profile, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given, even though get_profile and get_context are plausible siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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