get_request_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a 'check' (implying a read-only action) but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, returns data in any particular order, or how pagination works via the 'limit' parameter. Since it is a minimal statement, it does not provide enough behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence that directly and clearly conveys the tool's purpose with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to understand.

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 simple retrieval tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides a clear purpose. However, it lacks explicit mention of default behavior (e.g., no filters applied when parameters are omitted) or specific use cases, but the schema and output schema fill in most of the details needed for invocation.

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 already documents both parameters ('limit' and 'status') clearly, including their types, ranges, and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic information about the parameters; therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: checking the status of sent friend requests. The verb 'check' + resource 'status of sent friend requests' is specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_friend_request' which handles sending.

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 that this tool is used to retrieve the status of friend requests that were previously sent, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or situations where it should not be used.

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