rti_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses what the tool returns (state, date changed, remarks/reply summary, PDF availability), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects or behaviors such as whether a refresh triggers a new external request, whether data is cached, or any rate limits. This is a moderate level of disclosure for a simple status query.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete example, followed by the return value details and a colloquial framing. Every clause earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 single-record status lookup, the description covers the essential purpose, input example, and output content. An output schema exists, so return values don't need further explanation. The only notable omission is the behavior of the refresh parameter, which could affect correct invocation. Overall, it is quite complete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an explicit example format for registration_number ('NIMNS/R/E/26/00220'), which adds real semantic value. However, the refresh boolean parameter is entirely unaddressed in both the schema and the description, leaving its purpose and effect ambiguous. The description partially compensates but has a clear gap.

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 function: retrieving the current status of one RTI application by registration number. It specifies the exact resource (one RTI application) and the action (status lookup), and includes an example format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rti_list and rti_search, which operate on multiple applications or different criteria.

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 provides clear context that this is the everyday 'what happened to my RTI' lookup for a single application, which implies usage when a specific registration number is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like rti_details or rti_search, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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