catalog_export_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'status, charge info, and any error messages', which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires authentication, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 with two short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists what is returned. Every word is necessary, and no fluff is present.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required UUID parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic return values. However, it lacks context such as the need to call export_catalog_model first, whether polling is safe, or how to interpret errors. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the base score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters (model_id and export_id) beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify their format or relationship beyond UUIDs.

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 'Check the status of a Marketplace export operation', specifying the verb (check), resource (status of export operation), and scope (Marketplace). It distinguishes this tool from sibling status tools like job_status or evaluation_status by being specific to Marketplace export operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites. While it's implied that it should be used after initiating an export via export_catalog_model, there is no direct guidance. The name helps, but explicit usage context would improve clarity.

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