geopass_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and the absence of destructive or open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is session-scoped ('stored in-session') and the return payload is a report plus a geopass_receipt_v1 envelope, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence that names the action, the two returned artifacts, and the run lineage, with the key scoping term ('in-session') front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with full parameter documentation and complete safety annotations, this covers what an agent needs: what it fetches and where the run came from. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g., run not found or expired session), which is the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the single run_id parameter is already documented as 'the GEOPass run id returned by geopass_run.' The description adds no format, lookup, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) plus the exact resources (the stored in-session GEOPass report and the geopass_receipt_v1 envelope). It explicitly ties itself to geopass_run as the run origin, so an agent can distinguish the 'start' tool from the 'retrieve result' tool without opening either schema.

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 prerequisite is clear: this only applies to 'a run started through geopass_run,' which tells the agent it must call geopass_run first. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but for a paired run/status toolset the context is unambiguous.

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