Check whether an action has already been done

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral facts beyond those annotations: it does not reserve a lease, does not consume plan allowance, and never grants permission. It stops short of describing the return payload or possible state values, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and non-behaviors. Every sentence adds information, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers when to use it, why, and what it does not do. The only notable gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not mention possible return states or not-found behavior, so an agent may not know what response to expect.

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 schema covers effect_type well with a detailed description and examples, but idempotency_key has no description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond referring to an "action," so it does not compensate for the missing idempotency_key semantics. At exactly 50% schema coverage, this lands at a mid score.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Look up the recorded state of an action." It also explicitly names the sibling tool it is not (ratchet_begin_effect), making the purpose immediately distinguishable from similar effect tools.

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?

It gives concrete use cases: resuming after a crash and answering whether an action went through. It also explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use it, pointing to ratchet_begin_effect for actual work and stating this tool never grants permission.

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