Get fax status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the tool is intended for repeated polling and the observable state machine is processing/completed/failed, which tells the agent when to stop polling. It does not mention rate limits or eventual-consistency behavior, so not 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 short sentences, zero filler. The resource and returned fields come first and the polling instruction closes it, so the agent gets the actionable cue immediately.

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 partially compensates by naming the returned fields (status, contact, pages) and the status values. It could say more about what happens for an unknown id (error vs empty), but for a one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'The transmission id.' The description's 'by id' restates the same idea without adding format, sourcing (where to obtain the id), or constraints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the meaning.

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 ('Get one fax transmission by id') and enumerates what is returned (status, contact, pages), which implicitly separates it from the sibling list tool. It stops short of naming ictfax_list_faxes as the alternative, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

'Poll this after sending a fax' gives a concrete trigger condition, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the list tool as a fallback for browsing, keeping it just below a 5.

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