get_walk_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 authentication requirements and mentions GPS tracking behavior for in-progress walks, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error conditions, rate limits, or what happens with invalid booking IDs.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second adds authentication requirements. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the authentication detail could potentially be moved to annotations if available.

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 single-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers authentication and GPS tracking behavior but lacks details about return format, error handling, or how to interpret different status values. More completeness would be helpful given the absence of structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'booking_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, validation rules). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a current or past dog walk booking'), with specific details about GPS tracking for in-progress walks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pet_report' or 'view_walker_profile' which might also provide status-related information.

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 mentions authentication requirements ('Requires WAG_EMAIL and WAG_PASSWORD') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pet_report' or 'view_walker_profile'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context or comparison to sibling tools.

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