Get Transfer Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the polling pattern, the multi-day completion window, and that status values match list_transfers plus a human-readable description. It doesn't cover error/edge behavior (e.g. unknown domain) but is solid for a read tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the usage rationale and return shape. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what comes back (same status values as list_transfers plus a human-readable description). For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `domain` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the resource being looked up but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema's `example.com` example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status of a specific inbound transfer for a domain') and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_transfers (single vs list) and transfer_domain (poll vs initiate). An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: poll after `transfer_domain` to know when the transfer completes, and names the typical 5-7 day window. It implies but never states the exclusion (use list_transfers for a broad view), so it stops short of 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.