printer_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. It does disclose the important behavioral trait that no machine commands are issued (i.e., a side-effect-free read of configured state), but says nothing about connection requirements, permissions, failure modes, or freshness of the queried state. Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is fairly excused.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and prerequisite detail noted elsewhere.

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 output schema covers return values and there is only one input parameter, but the description leaves printer_id's format and any precondition (e.g., printer configured/connected) undocumented. Adequate as a minimal read tool, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 single required parameter printer_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its expected form (name, serial, index, or ID from another tool). With only one parameter, this is the main documentation gap the description should have filled.

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 specific verb ('Query') and resource ('actual configured printer/job state'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from the command-issuing sibling by noting it works 'without issuing machine commands.' An agent can tell this is a read of current state rather than a printer_capabilities or printer_command call, though it never names those siblings directly.

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 phrase 'without issuing machine commands' implies the boundary against printer_command, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus printer_capabilities or printer_request_status. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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