get_brand_attestation_status

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint to true. The description adds value by listing the exact possible return statuses (NOT_REQUESTED, PENDING, APPROVED, MINTED, REJECTED) and noting that MINTED includes attestationUid. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the action and return values in the first sentence and usage in the second. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple polling tool with one parameter and three annotations, the description sufficiently covers the return values and intended use. However, the lack of parameter explanation and absence of output schema (though return values are enumerated) leaves minor gaps.

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%, meaning the description does not explain the single parameter 'shopSlug'. The parameter's constraints (pattern, length) are in the schema, but the description provides no semantic guidance on what a droplinked shop slug is or how to find it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Poll' combined with the resource 'brand attestation request status for a droplinked shop'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'verify_brand_attestation' by implying a read-only status check rather than a verification action.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this to surface progress to merchants after they submit a request.' It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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