get_agent_training_pair_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: read-only, never lists, returns no dataset/artifact/receipt/key/location, and status responses explicitly report no execution surface. This is substantially more than the schema or annotations provide.

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 four sentences are front-loaded with the core action and each adds non-redundant behavioral or semantic information. There is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema exists and annotations are absent, the description covers safety, scope, return limitations, and parameter caveats well. It is slightly less complete on workflow context—such as how a pair_handle is obtained or when to choose this status tool over related training-pair tools—but that is a minor gap.

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 gives meaningful semantics for project_id ('additional exact-scope constraint, not caller-supplied authority') but leaves pair_handle, the required parameter, to be inferred from the tool name and the phrase 'one exact-owner.'

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 a specific verb and resource—'Read one exact-owner ... training-pair status'—and reinforces single-object scope with 'never lists pairs.' It does not name a sibling alternative, so differentiation is clear but not explicit.

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 communicates clear context: this is for reading one exact training-pair status, not listing, and project_id is only an extra scope constraint rather than caller authority. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over sibling tools such as preflight_agent_training_pair or request_agent_training_pair_admission.

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