get_study_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioural context beyond them: cost ('Free'), a polling cadence field (poll_after_seconds), and the retry path for pending states.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by cost and fallback guidance. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden; it partially discharges this by naming order state, collection progress, and poll_after_seconds. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing, though the shape of the returned state values is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions study_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, a single UUID-typed identifier is self-evident from the name and pattern, so this is a minor gap rather than a real ambiguity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get order state and collection progress') that clearly distinguishes this status-polling tool from siblings like get_study_results, quote_study, and purchase_study. An agent can identify what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent this call is free, to honour poll_after_seconds, and to fall back to retrying purchase_study with its original identifiers when the study is pending settlement or launch. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly what routing guidance should do.

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