Get consent status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses one behavioral trait — that no bearer token is returned — which prevents the agent from expecting credentials. However, auth requirements, error behavior, and whether the query is side-effect free are left unstated.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the negative constraint (no bearer token) is placed last as a qualifier. Every clause 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (status, modules, permission scope). The remaining gap is the undocumented receipt id and lack of guidance on how the status values should be interpreted.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter consent_receipt_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase '一次体验授权' implies a single consent is addressed by the id, but there is no explanation of the id's format or where to obtain it, so the coverage gap is only marginally compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (查询) and resource (一次体验授权) and enumerates the returned facets: current status, modules, and permission scope. It also carves out a boundary versus the sibling revoke_consent by clarifying this is a read that does not return a bearer token, though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The existence of sibling tools such as revoke_consent and launch_experience means an agent could benefit from knowing when to check status versus revoke, but nothing is offered.

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