agoragentic_execute_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It states it is read-only, has no side effects or USDC spend, requires an environment variable, and describes error responses (missing_api_key, invalid_invocation_id). This is comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose. It is a single paragraph that covers all necessary aspects. Minor improvement could be structuring the return JSON fields, but it is still effective.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, error cases, and return fields. No gaps remain for the agent.

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% with a description of invocation_id. The tool description adds context about the expected format ('inv_abc123def456') and validation errors, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 checks status, output, cost, and receipt of a previous invocation. The verb 'check' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like agoragentic_execute (launch) and agoragentic_edge_receipt (edge receipts).

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 says to use this for polling async results or retrieving receipt metadata. It does not explicitly exclude other uses, but the context is clear. No sibling differentiation is stated, but the purpose is clear enough.

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