tradify_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the three things inspected (account, credits, connection), which is real substance beyond a bare status label, but it omits whether the call is read-only, whether it consumes credits, what happens on failure, and whether any auth is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is stated before the enumerated checks. Slight redundancy remains between 'account and Tradify' and the trailing 'account, credits and Tradify connection' list.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only place to explain what a status check reports and what an agent should do with a negative result. It names what is inspected but not what comes back, so it is adequate rather than complete for a diagnostic 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument call by not implying any inputs.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Check') and names the exact resources verified: Cotlet.dev account, credits, and the Tradify connection. That is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (click, open, read, type, close), which are browser actions, so an agent can tell this is a pre-flight readiness check. It stops short of a 5 only because it never says what 'ready' produces as a result.

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 word 'ready' implies this should be run before attempting real Tradify operations, which is useful implied guidance, but the description never states that explicitly or names when not to call it. There are no stated prerequisites, alternatives, or fallback behavior if something is not ready.

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