Check GenieLocker service status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the behavioral detail 'This never creates or purchases a locker,' which goes beyond annotations by explicitly ruling out purchase side effects. It also lists the specific data points included, providing useful context for what the read operation covers. No contradictions with 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 two sentences: the first states the tool's function and lists outputs, the second clarifies the non-mutating behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and contains no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key information: what data is accessible (catalog, capacity, sellability, locker counts, payment-rail status) and the non-mutating guarantee. It does not describe the output format, but the enumerated list gives a strong expectation. The rich annotations compensate for any missing behavioral details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description need not add parameter details. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate and adds no confusion.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Read current catalog, capacity, sellability, locker counts, and payment-rail status.' It uses the verb 'read' and enumerates the resources, making it distinct from sibling tools like genie_catalog or genie_quote. The additional sentence 'This never creates or purchases a locker' further differentiates it from mutation-oriented tools.

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 implies the tool is for checking service status by saying 'Read current... status.' It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'never creates or purchases a locker,' signaling it is not for purchasing or creation tasks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when you need an aggregate status view,' so it lacks full when/when-not guidance.

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