opencdr_detection_consumer_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real context by stating the read does not acknowledge the receipt (a side-effect distinction that matters), that it requires direct Core IAM delivery access (an auth prerequisite), and that names never select another owner (an ownership/scope constraint). It stops short of explaining what 'lag' measures or how the result is shaped, but the additions are substantive.

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?

Four short, front-loaded chunks: purpose, access requirement, mode routing, then the agent_id convention. Each line carries information, though the mode/ownership points are split across separate fragments and could be consolidated without losing clarity.

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 and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to do more than it does: it never explains the receipt/lag payload or the pagination controls (after, limit) or the audit flag. It adequately handles the Fleet-versus-Core decision and the no-acknowledgement guarantee, which are the highest-risk ambiguities, but a 5-parameter tool warrants fuller coverage.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only clarifies one of five: agent_id must be set in Fleet mode and left unset in Core mode, which is genuinely useful. The required consumer_id, plus after, limit, and audit, receive no explanation anywhere, leaving a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read this IAM principal's consumer receipt and lag, explicitly without acknowledging. It separates itself from the Fleet worker-receipt path by naming Fleet agent detection status as the alternative, though the terms 'consumer receipt' and 'lag' are domain jargon that an uninitiated agent may not fully resolve.

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 gives a clear when-not-to-use rule (Fleet mode owns its worker receipts; use Fleet agent detection status instead) and a mode-dependent calling convention for agent_id. What's missing is guidance on when this read-only status check is preferred over siblings like opencdr_detection_detail or opencdr_status, so routing beyond the Fleet/Core split is left implicit.

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