status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool reports one of four statuses, which gives insight into possible outcomes. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior for unknown job_ids, or whether the operation is strictly read-only (though 'check' implies it). The description adds some behavioral context but leaves notable gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the relevant statuses, and names the key parameter. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it tells you what the tool does, what statuses to expect, and what input is needed. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., whether it returns just a status string or additional metadata), nor does it address error cases like an invalid job_id. Given its simplicity, this is a minor gap, so 4 is appropriate.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter job_id, with a clear description that it is returned by webhook_relay. The description's mention of 'by its job_id' adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (check) and the resource (delivery status of a webhook job), and even enumerates the possible statuses (queued/retrying/delivered/failed). It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as 'relay', which might be seen as the complement. Thus it meets the bar for clear purpose without explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies the usage scenario: when you have a job_id from webhook_relay and want to know its delivery status. The parameter schema reinforces this by specifying that job_id is returned by webhook_relay. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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