check_tracking_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (open count, device info, timestamps) which is valuable behavioral information, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 with zero waste - first states the purpose, second describes the return values. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 single-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose and return values. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or error handling. It's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 specific action ('check if a tracked email has been opened'), identifies the resource ('tracked email'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on status checking rather than listing or sending emails. It provides a complete verb+resource+outcome statement.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'tracking ID returned from send_tracked_email' (referencing a sibling tool), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tracked_emails. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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