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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful detail about what status information is exposed (configured or not, last success/error) and that it is distinct from capability, but it does not describe response shape, pagination, permissions, or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, the key status fields, and the conceptual boundary from capability. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what the tool reports and what it does not cover. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying all-provider behavior or response structure, but the schema already covers the 'omit for all' parameter behavior.

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 100%, and the single parameter already documents 'Provider id; omit for all.' The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 names the specific resource and scope: 'Configuration and health of Datamart providers (configured or not, last success/error).' It also distinguishes the tool from capability-oriented concerns, but it does not name a concrete sibling tool such as datamart_search, so the differentiation is conceptual rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'separate from capability' gives an implied exclusion: use this for provider configuration and health rather than capability checks. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative to choose for related questions.

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