opencdr_detection_handoff_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the fleet-vs-core mode distinction, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about what a 'reviewed' plan means, what happens when handoff_id is unknown, or what the payload looks like.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the resource is stated first and the conditional parameter rule second. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence could be folded more tightly into the first.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say more about return values, and handoff_id semantics are absent. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate, but not complete.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the agent_id mode semantics well, but handoff_id is left entirely unexplained despite being the sole required parameter, so compensation is only partial.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('a reviewed consumer handoff plan or permanent acceptance receipt'), so the agent knows this is a retrieval tool. It stops short of differentiating itself from adjacent status tools such as consumer_status, recovery_status, or handling, which the agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

'In fleet mode, supply agent_id explicitly. Core mode leaves agent_id unset' is genuine usage guidance for the parameter, but it addresses only mode selection, not when this tool should be chosen over the many sibling status tools. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool routing.

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