pair_tv_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the enumerable outcome states (waiting, paired, failed), which is useful behavioral context, but since an output schema exists those states are likely documented there and no polling or failure-handling behavior is explained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pairing linkage and the possible outcomes are both conveyed compactly.

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 simple, single-parameter polling tool with full schema coverage, explicit read-only annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Only polling cadence/termination guidance is absent, which is minor.

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 100% and the single "name" parameter is already documented as "Name used in pair_tv." The description adds no format, constraint, or matching detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Check") and resource (a pairing) and anchors it to the sibling that creates the pairing ("started with pair_tv"), which cleanly separates it from get_status. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 phrase "started with pair_tv" clearly implies the workflow context: call this after pair_tv to poll the pairing outcome. It gives no explicit exclusions or timing guidance (e.g. how often to poll), 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.