check_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that retrieval involves scraping an external city portal or searching Gmail, hinting at network dependence and possible failure, but it says nothing about latency, partial results, or rate limits on scraping.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and the two modes. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of omitting return-shape 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the burden of telling the agent what a check returns (status value, decision text, not-found case). It does not, leaving a real gap for a tool whose whole job is reporting a result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents city, gmail_search, and violation_number, including the required-with-violation_number constraint. The description only echoes the city-portal/Gmail split, adding no format details or parameter interplay beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('check') plus resource ('dispute status') and names the two retrieval mechanisms (city portal scrape, Gmail search for decision emails). It is distinguishable from siblings like check_tickets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 two usage modes (portal lookup vs. Gmail search) but gives no guidance on when to prefer one, what the prerequisite setup is (e.g. setup_gmail, a sibling tool), or when to use this instead of check_tickets. Usage is inferable from the parameters rather than stated.

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