get_activation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking status, tier, and expiry, but does not specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of checking activation status with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the return values are (e.g., format of status, tier, expiry), potential errors, or behavioral traits like authentication needs. For a tool with such gaps in structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'agent_key' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why the key is needed or how it's used. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Check') and the resources ('activation status, tier, and expiry for your agent'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_payment_activation' or 'verify_payment_activation', which might have overlapping or related purposes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_payment_activation' or 'verify_payment_activation', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for checking activation details but lacks explicit context or comparisons.

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