proveit_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does meaningful work: it declares the tool needs no key, works at any time, and reads season state live from the season service rather than inferring it from dates, which signals freshness and safety of the read. It omits error behavior (e.g., what happens when the season is closed or the service is unreachable), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

It is front-loaded with the read action and the returned facts, and the closing imperative tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. The single long sentence packs multiple parenthetical clauses, which is dense but each clause adds real information rather than restating the name.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, auth requirements, freshness guarantees, and call timing. The remaining gap is failure-mode behavior, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond the empty schema; a baseline 4 applies. Saying 'needs no key' usefully confirms no implicit auth argument is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read the state') and names the resource precisely (PROVE IT season 1 plus local setup), then enumerates the exact facts returned: season-open status, Trust Layer key presence, DID presence and binding, enrollment, and submitted-task count. That enumeration distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like proveit_enroll and proveit_submit, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with proveit_progress, which appears to overlap on task counts.

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?

It gives clear positive guidance: 'Call it first, and again whenever you wake up,' which establishes both initialization and refresh cadence. It does not name alternatives or state when not to call it, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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