get_contract_call_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Look up') and details the return values (lifecycle state, block number, gas, etc.), which gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or what happens if the call_id is invalid.

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 efficiently communicates purpose and return information. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. An agent can confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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 100% description coverage—both parameters are described ('The project ID', 'The contract call ID (ccall_...)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond these schema descriptions, so the parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('contract call by call_id'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'contract_call' (which presumably submits) and 'contract_read' (which reads contract state without a call). It explicitly lists returned fields, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 context (checking status after a call is submitted) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no exclusion criteria. The agent must infer appropriate usage from the tool's purpose.

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