are_suspended

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (True/False/null) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. Behavioral traits beyond input/output are missing.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description provides sufficient detail about the return values, including null handling. However, it could benefit from a note about performance or usage context.

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 input schema has one parameter 'card_ids' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining the mapping from card IDs to outputs, including handling of nonexistent cards. However, it does not elaborate on formatting or constraints beyond what is obvious.

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 uses specific verb 'return' and resource 'suspended status for each card ID', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'suspend_cards' (which modifies) and 'are_due' (different check). It precisely states the output for each card.

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 usage for checking suspension status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suspend_cards' or 'unsuspend_cards'. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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