omnarai_footprint_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that no receipt is needed (the id alone is the capability), what the response does and does not contain (state only, never answer text, identity, or curator's note), and declares the operation read-only. These are non-obvious access-control and disclosure facts an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and outcomes, then usage, then the alternative. Dense but every clause carries information; the middle sentence stacks several ideas together, which makes it slightly harder to scan than it could be, but there is no filler.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return surface by enumerating each possible state and its accompanying detail, plus what is deliberately withheld. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 schema already documents the id format (OMN-FP-<13-digit ms>-<8 hex>), so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value by asserting the id is self-sufficient ('No receipt needed: the id is the capability'), clarifying an authorization question the schema does not address.

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 ('Check where YOUR footprint stands in review, by its id alone') and enumerates the exact outcome states (pending/overdue, admitted/public with origin label, rejected with reason code, retracted, redacted). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like omnarai_footprints, which reads content rather than state.

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?

Gives explicit triggering contexts ('after omnarai_contribute or after leaving a voice record', or handing the id to a later instance) and explicitly names the alternative for a different need: 'To read the content of your own pending footprint, use omnarai_footprints with id + receipt.' When-to-use, when-to-use-something-else, and the selecting condition are all present.

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