uscis_case_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read-only operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by naming the output fields (status, form type, latest action) and the input format. It does not disclose potential errors or rate limits, but for a simple status lookup with a read-only hint, this is adequate and goes beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second lists the return values, and the third explains the input format. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and the read-only annotation, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the input and expected output, providing enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Minor gap: it does not mention error behavior for invalid receipt numbers, but that is not critical for a basic status lookup.

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 schema provides a description for the only parameter, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the parameter semantics by explaining the exact format ('13 characters: 3-letter center code + 10 digits') and giving a concrete example, which helps the agent construct a valid receipt_number value more accurately than the schema alone.

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 action ('Check the status'), the specific resource ('USCIS immigration case'), and the required input ('by receipt number'). It also details what is returned (status, form type, latest action), making it unmistakable what the tool does. Since no sibling tool covers USCIS case status, it is inherently distinguished.

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?

It provides clear context by specifying the exact receipt number format and an example, indicating when to use this tool (when you have a valid receipt number). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say 'use this instead of X,' but the absence of sibling tools for USCIS status makes such exclusion unnecessary. The usage context is sufficiently clear.

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