goodnotes_operation_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the receipt is local, the outcome can be pending or uncertain, and in those cases the agent must verify against the document rather than retrying the write under a fresh ID. That retry hazard is the most valuable behavioural detail here and is not derivable from any structured field.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the primary instruction (read the receipt) leads ahead of the cautionary clause. Every clause carries information: the trigger, the ambiguity case, and the prohibition on re-issuing writes.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operating context: when to call it and what to do with an inconclusive result. What is missing is what the receipt actually contains or which states besides pending/uncertain can come back, which the agent needs in order to interpret the answer.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage — the schema only supplies a regex pattern, no meaning. The description never explains what an operationId is, where the agent obtains it, or whether the ID from the timed-out write is reusable. The framing of 'operation receipt' implies the parameter keys the receipt, but that is inferred, not stated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read a local operation receipt.' That is concrete enough to separate it from the many *_status siblings, which report on boards, sync, batches and similar objects rather than a single operation receipt. It stops short of naming any sibling as a contrast, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition — 'after a timeout or restart' — which is exactly the situation an agent needs to be routed to this tool. It also gives conditional guidance for the ambiguous case ('Pending/uncertain means inspect the document'). It does not say when this tool should be skipped in favour of goodnotes_status or goodnotes_batch_status, so the exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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