get_tredjepartsopplysninger_status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. The description only states the purpose, not any behavioral traits like read-only nature, possible statuses, error behavior, or authentication requirements. It adds no context beyond what the name implies.

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 immediately states the action. No filler or redundant information; it is appropriately minimal for a tool with one parameter.

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 description is minimal viable for a simple status-check tool. It doesn't link to the corresponding submission tool or explain expected statuses, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, it is not severely incomplete. However, it could benefit from more context.

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 coverage is 100% since the only parameter innsendingId is fully described as 'ID from the submission'. The description's mention of a submitted report is consistent but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 'check' and clearly identifies the resource: processing status of a submitted tredjepartsopplysninger report. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_tredjepartsopplysninger and get_tredjepartsopplysninger_oppgavetyper.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to submission flows. It doesn't mention that it should be used after submitting a report, nor any alternative status endpoints. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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