wais_status

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

With no annotations, the description must suffice. It discloses that the tool is read-only (check status), details its return (plan, credits, usage stats), and reveals an internal behavior (looking for specific actions). It doesn't mention idempotency or rate limits, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 extremely concise, with a clear first sentence stating the main action, followed by essential details in two more sentences. No redundant or ambiguous phrasing.

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 (single parameter, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers prerequisites, behavior, and parameter guidance. It leaves no critical gaps for a standard status check.

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 has only a title for site_url; the description adds full meaning by explaining it should be the site.url from agents.json, which completely compensates for the 0% schema coverage and clarifies the expected value.

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 tool checks user account status at a WAIS-compatible site, returning specific data (plan, credits, usage stats). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wais_register (registration) and wais_execute (execution), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a prerequisite ('user must be registered first') and explains the internal lookup in agents.json, providing practical context. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when to avoid usage, the purpose is distinct enough from siblings to guide appropriate use.

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