get_agent_contact_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It accurately conveys that the tool is read-only (get), but does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The listed possible states help, but more detail on return format or error conditions would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the possible states.

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 parameters and a simple purpose, the description covers the key information (state values). However, it does not specify the return type or format (e.g., a string), which could be inferred but not explicit. For a tool this simple, it is mostly complete.

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, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by enumerating the possible return values, compensating for the missing output schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 retrieves the agent contact assurance state and lists all possible values (wallet_only, email_pending, email_verified, passkey_pending, operator_passkey). This sets it apart from sibling tools like set_agent_contact and verify_agent_contact_email.

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 the tool is for reading the current state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like verify_agent_contact_email or set_agent_contact. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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