competitor_probe_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return shape and status enum values, which is useful for a status check. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only-ness, error behavior, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and packed with only essential details (status values, return shape). No wasted words.

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 status-check tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the return structure and status semantics, and hints at the next step (classification). Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the brandId is invalid or probe doesn't exist, but this is not critical.

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% with a clear description for the single optional brandId. The tool description doesn't add param-level detail, but the schema already handles it adequately, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of the competitor discovery probe.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like competitor_probe (which likely starts the probe) and competitor_probe_classify (which classifies results).

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 clearly implies the use case: checking probe status after initiation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but its purpose is self-evident alongside sibling tools. Lacks explicit exclusions, hence not a 5.

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