get_amelding_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what statuses may be returned, whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, or any other practical details. The description only states a simple read operation without elaborating on the response or edge cases.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and explicitly mentions the parameter. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains the primary use case, but it omits details about possible status values or how the response relates to other A-melding tools. Given the minimal complexity, the description is acceptable but leaves the agent to guess about response semantics.

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 input schema already documents the parameter 'innsendingId' with the description 'ID from submission'. The tool description provides no additional semantic information beyond what is already in the schema, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (Check status), the resource (submitted A-melding), and the key parameter (innsendingId). It is specific and aligned with the tool name, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get_amelding_tilbakemelding, which might also be used after submission.

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?

Usage context is implied by the word 'submitted'—the agent can infer this is for checking the status of a previously submitted A-melding. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_amelding_tilbakemelding or list_amelding_for_maaned, so the guidance is minimal.

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