feedback_case_status

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the call is free, that it is a read-only status lookup, and it enumerates the returned fields plus the full status lifecycle (received / triaged / fixing / fixed / wont_fix). It does not say what happens when a case_id is malformed or unknown, or whether results are cached/live.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the cost tag and the core action, then the parameter and return payload. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: cost, purpose, parameter origin and format, and the shape of the response including status values. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the parameter (case_id), gives the expected prefix format (afb_...), and states where the value comes from (a case filed through report_issue). Only the exact id length/validation rules are left implicit.

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?

"Look up the status of a case filed through report_issue" names a specific verb (look up), a specific resource (case filed via report_issue), and explicitly ties itself to the sibling tool that creates the case. An agent can distinguish this read tool from report_issue without opening either 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?

The phrase "filed through report_issue" gives a clear precondition (a case must already exist from that tool), and the [FREE] tag signals cost so an agent can prefer it over paid alternatives. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or failure behavior for an unknown case_id.

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