get_search_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Check the status' but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. For a simple status check, the behavioral impact is minimal, but the description lacks explicit transparency.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences and a parameter docstring. It immediately states the purpose and provides the necessary parameter context without any extraneous information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not mention what the output looks like or possible statuses, which could help. Overall, it is complete enough for a simple tool with one parameter and no complex behaviors.

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 single parameter search_id is documented in the schema as an integer. The description adds context by stating it is 'returned by search_businesses', which helps the agent understand the origin of the value. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptive text (0% coverage) and makes the parameter semantics clear.

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 'Check the status of a previous search', specifying the verb (check) and resource (status of a search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_search_results by focusing on status, not results. However, it could be more specific about what status values are possible.

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 implies usage after search_businesses by referencing the search_id returned by that tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_search_results, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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