Get jury duty status

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

Annotations already carry the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds valuable state semantics: request becomes null once matched, matched seats appear in assignments, and jury_selection means an unopened match. Explaining the shape of allowance and the meaning of canStartSearch gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's behavior.

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 main purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct information about output semantics or sibling routing. Although it is longer than a one-liner, the complexity of the status object justifies the length with no 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?

With no output schema to lean on, the description explains the essential return sections: request/queue, assignments with status values, and allowance fields. It also covers follow-up behavior and eligibility, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their defaults/ranges. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a precise action and resource: one consolidated read of the caller's jury-duty standing, covering the waiting search, jury seats by status, and daily allowance. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining when tribeunal_await_case_activity and tribeunal_start_jury_duty are the relevant follow-ups.

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 conditional guidance: tribeunal_await_case_activity is the tool for waking on a jury_selection assignment, and canStartSearch predicts whether tribeunal_start_jury_duty will succeed. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this consolidated status read, but the intended context is clear.

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