Read one status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so no extra safety disclosure is needed. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema by specifying that media, poll, link preview, and engagement counts are included in the result, which is valuable since there is no 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key result contents with zero filler. Every word contributes value, and no unnecessary enumeration or repetition is present.

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 read-only fetch with two parameters, one required, the description plus annotations cover the safety profile and the important returned components. The main gap is that it does not mention the optional account parameter or when to supply it, but the schema already provides that information, so the overall package is nearly complete.

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?

The description adds mild meaning to the id parameter by saying the status is fetched 'by id,' but it does not describe the account parameter at all. The account parameter is well documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it, yet with only 50% schema coverage for id the description only partially compensates.

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 states a specific action — fetching a single status by ID — and distinguishes it from siblings like get_thread (surrounding context), get_status_source (source text), and get_status_history (edit history) by emphasizing a single status with its media, poll, link preview, and engagement counts. The title and resource are clear and not tautological.

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 phrase 'A single status by id' implies the tool is for fetching one known status, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_thread, get_status_source, or get_status_history, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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