research_pending_ingest_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by clarifying that this tool returns metadata only (no content) and that it targets 'pending' drafts, which is a behavioral constraint. It does not contradict annotations.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters). No unnecessary 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 status-check tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description adequately conveys the core functionality. However, the complete lack of parameter explanation and missing guidance on error cases or usage context leaves gaps. The output schema may cover return format but not parameter semantics.

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%, meaning the schema provides no description for the single parameter draft_id. The tool description does not elaborate on what the draft_id represents, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., UUID format). This leaves the agent without critical information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 ('Return') and resource ('metadata for one pending immutable ingest draft') and clearly states what is excluded ('without its content'). It distinguishes from siblings like research_prepare_ingest (creates drafts) and research_commit_ingest (commits them) by focusing on status of pending drafts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., how to get a draft_id), nor any exclusions. The context of 'pending' is implied but not explicitly stated as a condition. There is no mention of alternative tools for committed drafts or for retrieving content.

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