Check Status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying that it 'does not consume a view' (a key behavioral trait not covered by annotations) and explains the effect of the 'previousViews' parameter on response messaging. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers the core purpose and key details, and the second explains optional parameter usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what specific data is returned about views, active status, expiration) and does not fully explain all parameters, leaving some gaps in contextual understanding.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only 'previousViews' has a description), the description compensates by explaining the purpose of 'previousViews' ('to detect new views since last check'), adding meaningful context. However, it does not clarify the semantics of 'url', 'secret_id', or 'status_token', leaving some parameters under-explained.

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 specific action ('check the status') and resource ('previously shared secret'), with detailed scope including view count, active status, and expiration. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'view_secret' by noting 'does not consume a view', making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.

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 explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use this tool (to check status without consuming a view) versus alternatives (implied that 'view_secret' would consume a view). It also mentions optional use of 'previous_views' parameter for detecting new views, giving clear context for parameter application.

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