giveaway_question_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool that likely performs a read-only scan, this omission is a gap.

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 front-loads the core action and output. Every part contributes meaning, with no wasted words.

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?

Given zero parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's purpose and expected output (list of videos with status and pin links). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., list vs summary).

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no additional semantic info about them, which is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool's function: cross-referencing uploads against question comments to identify which videos need a question and which have one posted (with links). It distinguishes from siblings like post_giveaway_question or scan_comments by specifying a status-checking purpose.

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 description implicitly conveys when to use (after posting questions, to check status) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes it reasonably clear.

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