goodnotes_study_board_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the call returns data without a browser session, output is compact by default, and includeEvidence expands to block receipts and source-export details. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens for an unknown or still-running workflowId), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the verbosity option second; no filler. The return-field list is dense but each item carries distinct meaning, so nothing should be cut.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (progress, output board, preview, timings, errors), which is the right compensation. It still leaves gaps for a 2-parameter status tool: no indication of whether status is final vs. in-progress, and no error behavior for a missing workflowId.

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 carry the parameter burden. It explains includeEvidence well (compact vs. full receipts and export details) but says nothing about workflowId beyond its appearance in the name, and does not clarify that the boolean defaults to false.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Read saved") plus a concrete resource enumeration (study progress, output board, final preview, per-stage timings, errors). It is clearly a status/read tool for a study board workflow, but it never states how it differs from the many sibling status tools (board_adoption_status, study_collection_status, study_revision_status, operation_status), leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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?

Implied usage is readable: check the saved result of a study-board workflow without opening a browser, and set includeEvidence when full receipts are needed. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling status tools, nor any prerequisite such as the referenced workflowId having been created by a plan/run tool.

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