Get Frantic posting status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the operation is private, it follows a GET endpoint, and it supports a specific authorization mode. It does not need to cover error handling or pagination for this simple status read.

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 tight sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the authorization guidance directly follows without wasted words.

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 read-only status endpoint, the description, combined with the param schemas and annotations, provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: path, identifier, token preference, and alternative authorization path. No critical invocation detail is missing.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds extra operational meaning by telling the agent to prefer the read-only status token and clarifying how the operator_token is sent via the HTTP Authorization header, which goes beyond the schema text.

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 action verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('private vendor posting intake status'), and the exact HTTP endpoint. This makes it easy to tell apart from siblings like get_bounty or get_agent_status, even though those tools are not explicitly named.

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 conveys the intended use case well: retrieving vendor posting status. It also provides operational within-tool guidance on preferring the status token and using the desk recovery token via the Authorization header. However, it does not explicitly point to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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