alarm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavior: waitSeconds triggers a long-poll that blocks until the status changes, capped at 50. It does not state rate limits, timeout/return behavior on expiry, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, so a small gap remains.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence could be folded into the second without loss, but overall it is tight.

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?

The tool is simple (one required id, one optional wait) and no output schema exists, so the description should arguably describe what a status result looks like or what happens when the poll expires. It covers the calling mechanics adequately but stops short of describing the returned status.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that waitSeconds drives a long-poll until the status changes rather than just being a numeric field. It still duplicates the max-50 bound already in the schema, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource ('Check an alarm created by the alarm tool') and names the sibling that produced it, so an agent can distinguish it from `alarm` itself. It is slightly less clear against `notify_user`, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition: 're-check after the alarm call timed out or was started with waitForResult=false.' This names the triggering scenario and the alternative path (waitForResult=true), leaving nothing to inference.

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