sherweb_subscriptions_amendment_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. It reveals the full set of return states (Unknown, Queued, Processing, Success, Failure), clarifying that the tool is a read-only status poll rather than a mutating operation. It could add error-handling details, but for a status-check tool this is solid disclosure.

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, no filler, and the essential action is front-loaded. The return-value list is compact and directly useful, and the reference to the sibling submission tool is placed where it is most helpful.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how to get the input, and what the outcome will be. It does not discuss error handling or polling semantics, but those are not necessary for an agent to invoke the tool successfully in most cases.

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. The description adds value by explaining that the trackingId comes from sherweb_subscriptions_change_quantity, giving the agent provenance and reducing ambiguity about how to obtain the valid input. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'returned when the amendment was submitted'.

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 a specific resource ('submitted subscription amendment'), a specific action ('Check the status'), and a required input ('tracking ID'). It directly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sherweb_subscriptions_change_quantity by focusing on status retrieval rather than submission.

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?

It clearly indicates the tool is used after an amendment is submitted, and explicitly points to sherweb_subscriptions_change_quantity as the source of the tracking ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is so specific that an agent can easily infer appropriate usage.

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