Check Operation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is semantics — and it delivers: 'done means the API response was saved; poll the returned task/transaction for actual execution' tells the agent the status is about acceptance, not completion. The reconciliation rule for pending/unknown prevents a duplicate-write failure mode that no annotation conveys.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraint, then input sourcing, then status semantics, then the failure rule. Every sentence adds information an agent needs and none repeat structured fields.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here; the description instead covers the things the schema cannot — what 'done' actually means, what to do next, and what never to do. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely does: it names the source of operation_id and clarifies method/path with concrete examples (submit_task=POST /tasks, create_pod=POST /pods). It loses a point because it refers to a nested 'operation_lookup.method/path' that does not match the flat three-parameter schema, leaving the exact path format (version prefix, query string) unresolved.

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 and resource ('check a write's durable acceptance record') plus the negative scope ('without submitting it again'), which immediately separates it from the write siblings like submit_task and create_pod. An agent can tell it apart from the mutating tools without opening any 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?

Explicitly says where the inputs come from ('operation_id and operation_lookup.method/path from the write result/error') and gives a hard rule for the ambiguous case ('pending/unknown require reconciliation, never a new operation_id'). That is an explicit when-to-use plus a when-not-to-do-something-else, which is the top of this scale.

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