supportpages_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, yet the description adds meaningful side-effect boundaries: it will not initiate auth, spawn a browser, mutate bindings, or expose credentials, and it notes the read-only API path is used only 'when configured.' Return values are covered by the output schema, so the omission there is acceptable.

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 capability list followed by the boundary conditions. Slightly dense, but every clause carries information and there is no padding.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to cover behavior and scope, which it does across five reported facets plus the negative boundaries. The absence of routing guidance against sibling diagnostics is the one meaningful 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 100%, so run_id and workspace are already documented in the schema, and both are optional. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Check) and enumerates the concrete resource set it reports on: article progress, draft links, signed-in account, browser approval progress, and help-centre access. An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent diagnostics like supportpages_doctor or supportpages_get_operation.

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 frames scope through negatives ('Does not start authentication, open a browser, change bindings') which implies this is the passive inspection call, but it never states when to prefer it over supportpages_get_operation, supportpages_get_context, or supportpages_doctor. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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