check_ev_extension_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only 'checks' operation and adds context about CAA requirements, but does not detail any side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by critical action guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

The tool has an output schema and 100% schema coverage, so return values are already documented. The description adds important context about CAA enforcement and the required recommendation, making it complete for a simple check tool.

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 schema description covers 100% of parameters, meaning the description adds no new parameter meaning. The tool's description does not explain the optional customerId or the format of orgUnitId beyond schema, but the schema already provides adequate guidance.

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 checks if the Endpoint Verification (EV) extension is force-installed for a given Organizational Unit, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_seb_extension_status, which targets a different extension.

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 provides explicit context on why the EV extension is required (for Context-Aware Access) and instructs the agent to recommend force-installation if not installed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the purpose is clear enough.

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