stk_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states it queries status, implying a read operation, but does not disclose expected response format, error conditions, authentication needs, or whether it may poll. Minimal behavioral context is provided beyond the core action.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. It conveys the essential action and the key parameter without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and easily scannable.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify what the query returns, but it does not. It also leaves shortCode unexplained and provides no information about error cases or response structure. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 only 50% (checkoutRequestId has a description, but shortCode has none). The description reinforces checkoutRequestId's meaning but adds nothing about shortCode. Since the description does not compensate for the missing shortCode semantics, the parameter guidance is incomplete.

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 the tool queries the status of a previous STK push using a CheckoutRequestID. It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('status of a previous STK push'), distinguishing it from related tools like stk_push (which initiates) and transaction_status (which is more generic).

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 usage context: after a previous STK push, to check its status. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. For example, it does not clarify whether to use this instead of transaction_status for STK payments.

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