faxdrop_get_fax_status

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

Discloses side effects: each call hits the FaxDrop API and counts toward rate limits, terminal results are cached process-wide. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds concrete behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise with clear sections using 'USE WHEN', 'DO NOT USE', 'SIDE EFFECTS', 'POLLING STRATEGY', and 'RETURNS'. No wasted sentences; each line serves a distinct purpose.

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 polling nature and complexity, the description covers usage, termination conditions, caching, rate limits, and return format. Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately informs the agent about what to expect.

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 has 100% description coverage for `faxId`, already specifying it is returned by `faxdrop_send_fax` with an example. The description restates this information without adding new details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the tool checks delivery status of a fax sent via `faxdrop_send_fax`. It lists possible status values and specifies its role in the workflow, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sending or pairing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (polling after sending) and when not to use (for faxes outside MCP, which return 404). Provides a recommended polling strategy and instructs to stop polling on terminal statuses, offering clear guardrails.

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