yearning_query_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool invokes two separate GET endpoints (is_query and query_status), implying combined functionality. It also specifies that it operates on the current user's data, which is not indicated in annotations. No contradictions found.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, with the first stating purpose and the second listing API endpoints. Every word is purposeful, no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the key information and easy to scan.

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 simplicity, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context: it names the two checks and corresponding APIs. It does not explain return values, but that is covered by the output schema. It could benefit from a usage note (e.g., 'use before running a query'), but that is covered under usage guidelines. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its scope.

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 0% for the single optional parameter response_format, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter or its behavior, but it fails to do so. The enum values (markdown/json) are self-explanatory, but the lack of any description or context leaves the agent without guidance on when to choose each format.

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 explicitly states the tool checks whether the query audit switch is enabled and the current user's query order status, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like yearning_my_orders (lists orders) and yearning_run_query (runs queries). The mention of specific API endpoints further solidifies its unique purpose.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before running queries, nor does it reference sibling tools for different scenarios. Usage is only implied by the tool's function, lacking clear context or exclusions.

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