get_chat_post_status

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations by warning that a missing match is not proof of failure. This is exactly the kind of open-world nuance that helps an agent interpret results correctly. It does not describe the full return shape, but the disclosure it provides is valuable.

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 two sentences with zero filler: the first clearly states the action, and the second provides a crucial caveat. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations already covering safety, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral caveat. However, it does not define request_id, describe what statuses or outcomes may be returned, or explain how 'fresh chat' is determined, leaving some gaps given there is no output schema.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, request_id, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions request_id. The parameter name itself gives a weak hint that it identifies a request, but the description adds no semantic detail about what value should be supplied or how it relates to the claimed post.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and a specific resource ('a claimed post against fresh chat'), making the tool's function clear. It differentiates from siblings like claim_chat_post by focusing on verification rather than creation or claiming, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 when to use this tool: after a claim has been made and you need to verify it against fresh chat data. It offers an important interpretive caveat ('A missing match does not prove delivery failed'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_league_chat or search_league_chat.

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