Read a status's original text

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that the output is raw typed text plus the content warning, and explains the pitfall of editing HTML-rendered content with rewritten links. It also adds an access constraint by limiting the source to the user's own statuses.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core definition is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by explaining why this tool is the correct source for edits.

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 tool, the description plus annotations cover safety, the access restriction, the return content, and the most important behavioral pitfall. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The schema documents 'account' but leaves 'id' bare, and the description never explicitly maps 'id' to a status identifier. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 specifies the resource ('one of your own statuses'), the exact representation ('plain-text source... exactly as it was typed'), and the extra content ('plus its content warning'). The contrast with rendered HTML clearly marks it as distinct from content-returning siblings like get_status.

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 line 'This is what to edit from' gives clear use context, and the warning about link rewriting in rendered content implicitly explains why the rendered version is unsuitable. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state hard when-not-to-use conditions.

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