reading_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine scope disclosure — "deliveryVerified=false; no page or reading-comprehension detection" — warning the agent not to over-interpret results, but it does not explain the notable idempotentHint=false on a pure status read, nor what is actually returned.

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, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic ("deliveryVerified=false"), which slightly hurts readability but not economy.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description carries the full burden but only hints at scope via a cryptic flag. It never says what the status response contains or what the caveat applies to, leaving an agent under-informed for even this simple tool.

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 0% and the single parameter operation_id is undocumented in both schema and description. Critically, operation_id is optional, and the description never says what happens when it is omitted (all operations? default?). This is a real gap the description should have filled.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Read reading operation status") and implicitly contrasts with the sibling reading_cancel by saying "without cancelling it." It is clear what the tool does, though the siblings reading_start/reading_cancel are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: check status without cancelling. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over polling other tools or what precondition (e.g. an in-flight operation) is required, and no named alternative.

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