avanan_get_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and 'task' implies an asynchronous operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention polling behavior or potential states. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 sentence that fronts the core purpose and immediately explains the key input. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter status lookup, the description is essentially complete: it identifies the operation, the input source, and the general intent. The lack of an output schema means possible state values are not specified, but that is not required to 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful provenance by saying the task ID comes from 'an action returned.' This tells the agent where to obtain the value, which the schema's bare 'Task ID' does not convey.

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 resource ('state of a quarantine/restore task') plus the lookup key ('task ID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling action tools like avanan_quarantine_events and avanan_restore_events, since this is the follow-up status check rather than an initiating action.

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 'by the task ID an action returned' provides clear contextual guidance: this tool is meant to be called after a quarantine/restore action returns a task ID. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for the same status-check role, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary.

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