kya_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden: it does disclose that this is a read-only lookup scoped to the caller's organization and names the backing API. It omits error behavior for an unknown or out-of-org agent_id and any rate or auth constraints, which leaves meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and return fields stated immediately; nothing is padded. The trailing 'through the StealthMark API' adds little an agent needs before invoking.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and the tenancy scope, which is most of what an agent needs. Only the failure path for an invalid agent_id remains unaddressed.

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 parameter is fully documented with a UUID format and pattern, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implicit framing that agent_id must belong to the caller's organization, which is useful but marginal.

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 ('look up') and resource ('registered agents') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, status, protocols), which distinguishes it cleanly from gateway_invoke and gateway_resolve. The only gap is that the tool name 'kya_status' is opaque and the description never expands on it.

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 'one of your organization's registered agents' implies a single-record retrieval keyed by agent_id, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to the sibling tools for related lookups.

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