get_request_status

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true aligns with the description's 'Get' action, so no contradiction. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as the effect of the optional 'depth' parameter or any rate limiting/auth requirements. With the annotation covering safety, a baseline score is appropriate.

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, precise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is optimally concise and front-loaded, capturing the tool's core function without unnecessary detail.

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 status retrieval tool, the description is minimally sufficient given the complete schema and readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not explain what 'status' means, potential return values (no output schema), or how 'depth' affects results. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding on usage.

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%, with 'request_id' and 'depth' both described. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters; it only mentions 'specific API request' without elaborating on depth or request ID format. Since the schema already handles parameter documentation, 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves the status of a specific API request. The verb 'Get' and resource 'status' make the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get_request' which might return full request details, so it misses explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_request' or when to prefer 'list_requests'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this status-specific tool is appropriate.

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