search_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 only states 'Return... status' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The tool's behavior is under-specified.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose and gets straight to the point, which aids quick understanding.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what the returned status contains, any prerequisites, or how the parameters affect the result. More context is needed for effective use.

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% with both 'account' and 'cookies' parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema provides adequate documentation.

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 'Return Grok Imagine media search index status' states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle posts, images, etc. However, the term 'status' is somewhat vague, lacking detail on what exactly is returned (e.g., health metrics, progress).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify conditions for checking status, nor does it mention limitations or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'check_quota' might be related, but no differentiation is stated.

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