get_deposit_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation as safe, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond it, notably that passwords returned by HAL are filtered. The status mapping also clarifies that the tool exposes authenticated SWORD lifecycle states rather than raw data.

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 compact and each sentence carries a distinct piece of information: the status mapping and the password-filtering behavior. The status legend is front-loaded and easy to scan, though the opening phrase 'Statut SWORD authentifié' is slightly ambiguous.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the status mapping gives useful response semantics and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. However, the description omits a clear statement of the tool's function, parameter meaning, and the exact response format, leaving notable gaps for the agent to infer.

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%, and the description makes no mention of hal_id or environment. It does not explain that hal_id identifies the deposit or how preprod versus production affects the response, so the agent must infer parameter meaning entirely from names and defaults.

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 provides a useful status-code legend ('accept=en ligne, verify=validation, update=corrections, delete=refus') and identifies the SWORD domain, but it never states the action with a specific verb such as 'retrieves' or 'returns.' It also does not differentiate this from siblings like inspect_deposit or validate_deposit, so the agent must lean on the tool name for core purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; siblings like inspect_deposit could plausibly also report deposit status. The description neither states prerequisites nor gives when-not-to-use conditions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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