get_storage_box_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful surface note about endpoint overlap with get_action, but it does not say what happens for an unknown or expired action ID, whether actions are retrievable after some retention period, or what status information comes back.

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 tight clauses with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical action list is dense but earns its place; the only mild cost is that "the documented endpoint" is asserted without saying where that documentation lives.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the definition is close to adequate. It is missing the one piece of context a caller actually needs: what an action record represents and why the agent would poll it, since the sibling list shows create/delete/reset tools that return these actions.

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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the single `id` field as "Action ID" with exclusiveMinimum 0. The description contributes only the clarification that such IDs can refer to create/delete/reset_password/snapshot/subaccount actions, which is modest added meaning, 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+resource ("Get a Storage Box Action by ID") and scopes the resource by listing the action kinds it covers (create/delete/reset_password/snapshot/subaccount). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_action by noting this is the documented endpoint while get_action also resolves them. It stops short of 5 because what an "Action" actually is (an async operation record with a status) is never defined.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical note nudges the agent to prefer this endpoint over get_action for storage box actions, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no guidance on the common case of re-fetching an action to check whether an async operation has finished.

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