Get send status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully established. The description adds the status vocabulary and the relationship to the send operation, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether statuses have timeouts or how the id is used internally. With strong annotations, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence states the operation, the possible status values, and the relevant sibling tool. There is no filler, and the key context appears immediately.

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 simple one-parameter status lookup, the description is complete. It identifies the required input's origin, enumerates the expected statuses, and benefits from annotations covering safety and idempotency. No output schema is present, but the description names the returned concept clearly enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'The id returned by send_linkedin_voice_note.' The tool description does not need to add much, and it confirms the id's origin by mentioning the send tool. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('delivery status'), and enumerates the possible states (queued, sent, failed, expired). It also ties the tool to send_linkedin_voice_note, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling send tool and other unrelated operations.

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 clearly implies when to use it: after sending a voice note via send_linkedin_voice_note, to check delivery status. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the association with the send tool is enough to route an agent correctly among siblings.

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