chatbuy_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'check login status' and doesn't reveal whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any prerequisites or side effects.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose, and repeated in Japanese and English. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Although the tool is simple, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least indicate what the status result looks like. It doesn't mention return values, success/failure behavior, or how login status is determined, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'site' parameter, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but the schema already handles it adequately.

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 ('check') and resource ('login status') for a shopping site, clearly stating what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'chatbuy_login' because 'status' implies inspection rather than performing a login, though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chatbuy_login or chatbuy_activate. The only context is 'for a shopping site,' which doesn't help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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