get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation returning data about provisioning state and its impact on other tools. It does not discuss rate limits or auth needs, but the behavior is well-described for a read-only status check.

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 efficient with a clear structure: purpose statement, return structure, and significance. A sentence could be tightened, but overall it is well-organized without waste.

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 no parameters and an output schema (not shown but implied), the description fully explains the tool's output and its relevance to other tools in the system. It is complete for the agent to understand when and why to call this tool.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate as there are none to describe.

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 returns the current agent's MoltAwards profile and provisioning state, listing specific fields (agent block, matchawards.signup_status). It uniquely identifies the tool among many siblings, as no other tool provides this specific status data.

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 explains that action tools return 409 and reads return empty lists until provisioning is complete, implying the tool is critical for checking state before using other tools. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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