timetree_occurrence_operation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the source is a *local journal* rather than TimeTree, and the presence of an "uncertain operation" state implies partial-failure semantics without side effects. It does not explain what an uncertain operation means or how it arises, which keeps it off a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the positive capability and then the exclusions; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is read and what is returned. The remaining gap is the provenance and failure behavior of operation_id, which an agent would need to call it correctly the first time.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter is undocumented beyond a regex pattern. The description merely restates "by operation_id" without saying where the ID originates (presumably a prior dispatch/mutation call) or what happens on an unknown ID, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Read the local occurrence journal by operation_id") plus the payload returned (last dispatch phase, known child UUID). The explicit negatives ("Does not query TimeTree, resume, retry, or unlock") separate it from sibling mutation/recovery tools like timetree_move_occurrence and timetree_get_occurrence_for_edit.

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 second sentence gives clear when-not guidance by ruling out resume, retry, and unlock, which is exactly the confusion an agent could have for an "operation status" tool. It stops short of naming the tool to use instead for recovery or re-dispatch, so the routing 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.