Get Service Status by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations – no note on auth scope, rate limits, or whether 'current' means live versus cached data – so it contributes no behavioral value of its own.

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 well-formed sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though borderline terse given the tool's option parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against get_service_status_by_funnel_and_cpf, which the description does not address.

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%, including the 'response_format' enum and 'include_customer_data' flag, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the lookup key is an atendimento ID, adding no semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('current status of a customer service record') and key ('atendimento ID'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling get_service_status_by_funnel_and_cpf, but the lookup key is clear.

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 implied by the parameters: use this when you already hold an atendimento ID. However, the description never states when to prefer this tool over the near-identical sibling that resolves status by funnel and CPF, nor any prerequisites, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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