founders_archive_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only status check ('check whether'), but does not describe what the response contains (e.g., boolean, detail object, error conditions) or any side effects (likely none). Since an output schema exists, some return details are covered structurally, but the description adds little beyond the action itself.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and object. No filler, no repetition, and every word contributes to the meaning. Ideal for a 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 the zero-parameter surface, the presence of an output schema, and the clear distinction from sibling tools, the description fully specifies what the tool does. There is no missing information an agent needs to decide to call it or interpret its result beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline guidance, a 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to describe; the description correctly avoids fabricating parameter details and focuses on the tool's 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 states a specific action ('check whether') and names the exact resources checked ('private transcript corpus and hybrid research index'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/fetch tools, so an agent can tell at a glance this is a readiness probe rather than a data-access operation.

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 a preflight role (checking readiness before using the search tools) but does not explicitly say 'use before searching' or mention when not to use it. It gives the purpose but no direct guidance on when to call it versus alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the gate-keeping scenario.

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