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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context by clarifying this is a configuration status query, not a liveness check, and that it includes the reason for not selling. It stops short of describing exact response format or error behavior, but for a no-parameter status tool the main ambiguity is resolved.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important scoping distinction ('not liveness') is delivered in the second sentence. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter configuration status check without an output schema, the description covers the core question, the network detail, the failure reason, and the alternative endpoint. It does not spell out exact field names or possible network values, but the agent can reasonably invoke and understand the response.

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 tool has zero parameters)Skip and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing additional needed.

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 the tool reports whether the service is currently selling, on which network, and why not if it isn't. It differentiates itself from a liveness/health check by explicitly pointing to /health, making the resource and purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance by stating 'This is configuration, not liveness' and directing the agent to the full health endpoint at /health. This tells the agent exactly which tool to choose for which purpose.

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