Check status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the lifecycle states, which is genuinely useful for deciding whether to poll again, but it does not say whether failed states carry error detail, whether progress is a percentage, or whether results become available at 'done'.

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 sentence with zero filler; the resource and the state enumeration are front-loaded and the parenthetical efficiently conveys the possible return values.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool reports but omits the linkage to the tool that produces check_id and any hint about what the response contains beyond the state name. Acceptable but with clear gaps.

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?

There is a single required parameter, check_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about where check_id comes from, its format, or what happens with an invalid or expired id, leaving the only parameter undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 specific resource ('a Rank Tracker check') and the exact information returned (status and progress), and the parenthetical state list (queued, running, done, failed) makes the output shape concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as rank_run_check, which is presumably the tool that creates the check, but the verb+resource is clear enough to select it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives like rank_run_check or list_tasks, and no stated prerequisite such as where a check_id comes from (presumably returned by rank_run_check) or how often to poll. The state list implies this is a polling tool, but that inference is left to the agent.

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