get_filing_status

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only coarse progress is returned and that no personal information is included, but it does not mention authentication needs, invalid document handling, or whether this operation is purely read-only.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose, lists the possible status values, and adds a useful privacy guarantee. Every part serves a purpose with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simple shape (one required string parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly sufficient: it communicates the coarseness and enumerates possible values. It only lacks a note about missing or invalid documents, and the relationship to 'start_filing' is implicit rather than explicit.

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 description does not explain 'docId' at all. The name 'docId' is suggestive but not amplified by the tool description; the parameter semantics are left mostly to inference.

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 ('get') and resource ('filing status'), names the coarse statuses ('awaiting_signature, awaiting_payment, filed, delivered'), and clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools 'check_property_tax_savings' and 'start_filing'.

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 this tool is for retrieving a filing's status after starting a filing, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or any workflow order. It provides clear context but not explicit when-to-use guidance.

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