get_ext_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'full status history' and 'Python SDK parity,' implying equivalent behavior to the SDK method. However, it does not disclose pagination, return format, or any operational details beyond the annotation baseline.

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 a single concise line, front-loaded with the endpoint and core function. It avoids fluff and gets to the point. While under-specified, it is not verbose, so conciseness is high.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description. It does not explain how to identify the issue (likely via message_id), what the response would contain, or any usage context. The description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 coverage is only 33% (only dry_run has a description). The tool description itself provides no parameter explanations. message_id and x_track_id are left undocumented, and the description does not clarify how these parameters relate to retrieving status history. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the resource ('issue/ext_status') and action (GET to retrieve full status history). It adds 'Python SDK parity' for context. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_delivery_status or get_package_status, but the resource name is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, required identifiers, or scenarios where other status tools would be more appropriate. The description merely states the endpoint and function.

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