meta_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, cached, requires authentication, or any side effects. The lack of behavioral info makes it risky for an agent to invoke without additional knowledge.

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 short sentence that conveys core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. However, the Korean language might reduce clarity for non-Korean agents, and the sentence could be slightly more informative without adding length. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. The tool has zero parameters, so the main missing context is what exactly the 'meta cache status' means and what format the output takes. It is adequate for a simple status retrieval but leaves questions about interpretation and relationship to other meta tools.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). Per baseline rule, score is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exist, but it does clarify the output scope (per market). This is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly identifies the tool's resource (market×industry meta cache) and the returned data (number of companies per market). However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list', relying on the noun 'status' to imply retrieval. Still, the purpose is discernible and different from siblings like build_company_meta (which builds meta) and list_industries (which lists industries).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over siblings such as build_company_meta or list_industries. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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