Check Report Status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by indicating it checks existence ('has a report') and status, and connects it to interview unlocking. It doesn't describe possible status values or return format, but with annotations covering side effects, a 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a purposeful clarification. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could be improved by explaining what 'status' means or what determines 'unlocked,' but it remains sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for simulation_id ('The simulation ID'). The description does not add further parameter details beyond confirming the input is a simulation ID. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a simulation has a report and its status.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the purpose: 'Used to determine if interview is unlocked,' which sets it apart from other report and simulation status 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?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Used to determine if interview is unlocked.' This gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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