list_ses_statuses

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: bookings without a submission are omitted, and the response includes attempts, last error, and official reference once accepted. This goes beyond what the annotations and schema 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the domain and purpose, then adds the important omission caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, returned fields, and the omission behavior. It does not specify response formatting or possible status values, but an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Booking ids to check, up to 50'), so the baseline applies. The description reinforces that the ids refer to host-owned bookings, but adds no additional syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (SES.HOSPEDAJES police-registration submissions) and the action (checking status for host-owned bookings), and lists the returned fields. It is clearly distinct from list_bookings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_guest_form_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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 use case is implied—check SES submission status for a set of bookings the host owns—and the host-ownership scope is stated. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no condition distinguishing it from get_guest_form_status.

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