things_request_status

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by clarifying that the check is against a 'local receipt,' not a remote system, and by warning that pending/unknown results should halt further writes. This is useful operational guidance that annotations alone do not convey, though it leaves the exact status vocabulary to the 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides the important conditional guidance. Every clause contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent status-check tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the key semantic of the parameter, and the critical retry guidance. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does by explaining that requestId is a mutation request ID tied to a local receipt. This adds meaning beyond the raw UUID format in the schema, even though it does not detail where the ID comes from.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('local receipt for a mutation request ID'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools because it is the only one about verifying the status of a previously issued mutation request rather than performing or querying domain operations.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: check the local receipt before further writes, especially when a request is pending or unknown. It also provides an explicit exclusion—do not automatically create a new ID as a retry—but it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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