status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions checking status, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it polls continuously, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what happens if the URL is invalid. The description adds basic context but lacks details on error handling or operational constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, but the use of markdown-like formatting might be slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, and there's no redundant information, making it efficient overall.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks details on return values (only states 'The current status' without specifying format), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a status-checking tool, more context on possible statuses or next steps would be helpful.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'url' parameter is 'The status_url from a queued request,' clarifying its purpose and origin. Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides no descriptions, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.

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's purpose: 'Check the status of a queued request.' It specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a queued request'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'result' or 'cancel', which might also relate to queued requests.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'queued request' and 'status_url from a queued request,' suggesting it should be used after initiating a request. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'result' (which might retrieve final results) or 'cancel' (which might terminate a request), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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