get_policy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the exact data returned (run state, start time, last log lines, summary readiness) and implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state side effects or error conditions, but for a status-checking tool this is fairly transparent. A 4 is appropriate because it goes beyond a vague 'get status' and details the output.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds value. It lists the key output fields without clutter and provides a clear pointer to a sibling tool. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a complete picture: it states what the tool does, what fields it returns, and how it relates to get_app. The possible state values (idle/running/done/error) are also included. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter appId as 'The numeric Apple track ID.' Description coverage is 100%, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'for one app,' which aligns with the single parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.

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's function: 'Get the privacy-policy AI run status for one app' and enumerates the specific outputs (run state, start time, last log lines, summary ready flag). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_app by directing users to get_app for the actual summary content.

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 explicitly mentions an alternative: 'Use get_app for the actual summary content.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (to check status) and when to use a different tool (to fetch the summary), providing clear usage guidance.

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