anaf_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior beyond annotations: token count, overall validity, and per-token CIF, expiry, and validity details. It does not explain open-world dependency behavior or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 with no wasted text. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently describes the return payload.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned for a zero-parameter read-only status check. It could be stronger by explicitly relating this overview to anaf_tokens and anaf_validate_cif, but it is otherwise complete for 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 and resource: checking the current ANAF integration status for the authenticated user. It also previews the returned status data, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as anaf_tokens or anaf_validate_cif.

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?

Usage is implied by “Check the current ANAF integration status,” so an agent can infer it is for status inspection. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for listing tokens or validating CIFs.

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