check_appeal

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

The annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by explicitly listing the full return dict structure, including conditional fields like 'outcome' and their possible values (e.g., 'UPHELD'|'OVERTURNED'), which is beyond what annotations provide. The 'Free tier' mention adds business context.

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 front-loaded with a concise one-line purpose, then follows with structured Args and Returns sections that are easy to parse. Every line adds value, though the return format listing is verbose; it could be condensed or moved to an output schema, but it's still efficient for agent use.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, and the output schema already present, the description is complete. It explains the required parameter's origin, documents the full return structure with enum values and conditional fields, and mentions cost tier. No gaps remain.

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 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description compensates well by explaining that the 'appeal_id' must come from 'submit_appeal', which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type/required definition. The description fully covers the parameter's origin and role.

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 retrieves an appeal's status and tamper-check result. It specifies the exact resource ('appeal') and action ('check'), and includes the free tier mention which is distinctive. Among siblings like 'submit_appeal' or 'verify_output', this tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that the 'appeal_id' parameter must be the one returned by 'submit_appeal', which gives clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_verdict' or 'get_insights', though the purpose is distinct enough to imply usage.

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