get_agent_marketplace_invocation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get current state' reasonably implies a read-only, side-effect-free status check, which is transparent enough for a low-risk getter. However, it does not disclose what states an invocation can be in, whether the call can be safely polled/repeated, or what happens when the invocation_id is unknown — context that would help an agent reason about the result.

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 12-word sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity (1 param) and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job. But completeness is undercut by the lack of differentiation from get_agent_marketplace_invocation_receipt and the missing provenance of invocation_id. For a simple status getter this is adequate with clear gaps, not more.

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 needed to compensate, and it does not. The sole parameter invocation_id is self-naming and maps well onto the description's 'marketplace invocation', but the description never says where the id comes from (e.g., returned by invoke_agent_marketplace_action or the receipt tool) or what format it takes. At zero schema coverage, this provenance guidance is a real gap.

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 ('Get'), resource ('current state for a marketplace invocation'), and scope ('in the selected company'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-twin sibling get_agent_marketplace_invocation_receipt — an agent cannot tell from this description what 'status' provides beyond what a 'receipt' would, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to call this tool — e.g., after invoke_agent_marketplace_action, for polling, or how it relates to get_agent_marketplace_invocation_receipt. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints despite a very close sibling existing in the toolset.

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