legitify.get_attestation_status

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

The description adds a useful behavioral caveat: in MVP, status is 'pending unless manually processed.' With no annotations present, this is meaningful context. However, it does not disclose response format, behavior for unknown IDs, or permissions, which limits transparency.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important MVP caveat is compactly appended in parentheses.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description conveys the core operation and an important MVP behavior. However, without an output schema or further explanation of possible status values, an agent is left guessing about the return payload. Sibling guidance is also absent.

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 description names attestation_request_id in prose but adds no meaning beyond the parameter name and type already shown in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate with format, origin, or usage hints, but it does not.

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 clearly states a specific operation ('Get status') and a specific resource ('attestation_request_id'), which distinguishes it from submission, review, and policy tools. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_pending_request_details, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_pending_requests or get_pending_request_details. The MVP note explains expected behavior, not when to use the tool, so the agent receives no decision support.

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