Get port-in progress

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it provides a 'live' snapshot and lists possible errors (NOT_FOUND, TNIQ_ERROR). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences: first defines the tool, second explains usage, third provides alternatives and errors. No wasted words; front-loaded with key information.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It specifies the type of data (per-TN states, FOC readiness) and mentions activatability check. Lack of output schema is mitigated by the description's clarity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id'. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, which already states it's a port request UUID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets a live TNIQ progress snapshot for a port project, tracking per-TN states and FOC readiness. It distinguishes from port_get_statistics, which provides aggregate counts, and from port_get_history and port_get_request, which are different in nature.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: for tracking submitted port progress and checking activatability before port_activate. Provides an alternative for aggregate counts (port_get_statistics). Could be improved by mentioning when not to use (e.g., for historical data or request details).

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