opm_status_types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns reference data for a fixed set of categories, with examples. This is helpful but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or pagination, though those are less critical for a simple parameterless list.

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; the first states the purpose and the second enriches with examples. Every sentence earns its place, with 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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what data is returned and what the values look like. It doesn't explain integration with other OPM tools, but that's not required for this simple reference endpoint.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with no parameters the schema needs no further explanation, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all possible federal government operating status types'), and the second sentence clarifies it returns reference data for named categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like opm_current_status and opm_status_history, which report current/historical status rather than the enumerated set.

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 clearly positions the tool as a reference-data list ('List all possible...') and gives examples of status categories, allowing an agent to infer when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools like opm_current_status or opm_status_history, nor provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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