tpt_product_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those by saying 'Read local submission journal.' It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the source is local, not remote, and that the status 'unverified' should not be equated with publication. No contradiction 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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful interpretation caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 is simple with one parameter and read-only annotations, so the description covers the basic operation and a key status interpretation. However, the missing id semantics and lack of any return-value guidance leave noticeable gaps for an agent needing to act on the result.

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%, and the description does not explain the required 'id' parameter at all. It is unclear whether 'id' refers to a product ID, a submission journal entry ID, or something else. With only one parameter, the description needed to clarify its meaning but failed to do so.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read local submission journal.' This clearly indicates a read operation on a local store, and the term 'local' distinguishes it from sibling tools like tpt_get_product and tpt_inspect that likely operate on remote/browser state. The added warning 'Unverified does not mean published' reinforces the tool's purpose of interpreting submission status.

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 the tool is used to check local submission state, especially after submission flows, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like tpt_verify_saved_product or tpt_get_product. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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