get_questionnaire_web_interview_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Check whether' implies a read-only operation, and the consequence about expired links adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, return format, or access requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and adding one valuable consequence. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least indicate what the status result looks like or how the optional profile affects the call. It provides the key business consequence but omits return-value and request-context details.

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 schema documents questionnaire_identity but leaves profile undocumented, giving 50% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter meaning and does not help clarify the optional profile parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check whether questionnaire-level web interview mode is active.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate_web_interview and deactivate_web_interview, which change state rather than inspect it.

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 a use case by noting that inactive mode may cause web assignment links to appear expired, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is present but only by implication.

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