get_property_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently describes the tool as a list operation returning statuses with IDs, colors, and sort positions. No hidden side effects or surprises are implied.

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 short paragraphs: the first states what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives usage context. Every sentence is useful and there is 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description specifies the return value (statuses with IDs, colors, sort positions). Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no side effects), the description is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (statuses with IDs, colors, sort positions), which compensates for the lack of an input schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is elevated.

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 that the tool lists all available property statuses, providing examples ('Verfügbar', 'Reserviert', 'Verkauft') and the data returned (IDs, colors, sort positions). It is distinct from sibling tools which create, update, or search other entities.

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 instructs when to use this tool: before filtering properties by status in search_properties or before setting a status in create_property or update_property. It names specific sibling tools and provides actionable guidance.

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