ss_async_status

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

No annotations provided. The description 'check the status' implies a non-destructive read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify any resources. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, using a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. It is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., status field, progress). It only says 'check the status' without describing the result format, leaving agents uncertain about expected output.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'operationId', with a clear schema description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it simply restates the purpose.

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 it checks the status of an async operation, with specific examples (registration, renewal, transfer, restore). The verb 'check' and resource 'status of async operation' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with domains, contacts, DNS, etc.

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 usage when an async operation's status is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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