check_consent_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'checks', indicating a read-only operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as that the tool accesses shared dependencies via ctx, but does not disclose edge cases or what happens if consent is missing. This is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, using a clear args/returns structure. Every sentence adds value: purpose is stated upfront, parameters are briefly defined, and return behavior is noted. No filler or repetition.

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 read-only status check with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, parameters, and return type. It lacks contextual details like typical usage flow or error scenarios, but these are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides brief but useful semantics for parameters: subject_id is 'User's CPF or internal ID' and bank is 'Identifier of the participating bank'. However, it does not explain the enum values for bank or provide format examples, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 checks the current status of a user's consent at a bank. The verb 'checks' and resource 'consent status' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like start_consent, revoke_consent, and check_payment_consent_status by focusing on the general consent status endpoint.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_consent or revoke_consent. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and purpose.

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