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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this tool reports user-facing health categories rather than technical fingerprint values, and it explicitly scopes out fingerprint/hash requests. For a read-only status tool, this is reasonably transparent, though it could add detail about default authority 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and status categories, followed by a critical boundary condition. No filler or repetition; every sentence 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?

The description covers tool selection and the key alternative, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the single parameter 'authority' is left under-explained, including its default/null behavior, so the overall context is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 description adds no direct guidance about the 'authority' parameter: what values to pass, whether null means 'all authorities', or how to discover valid authorities. The word 'authority' and the tool context give some clue, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific resource (authority source health), a clear action (select for status), and enumerates the statuses it returns (fresh, stale, changed, blocked, unavailable, under review). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the source_fingerprint_status sibling, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 an explicit when-to-use signal ('USER-FACING AUTHORITY SOURCE HEALTH') and an explicit when-not-to-use rule with a named alternative: never for fingerprints/hashes, always use source_fingerprint_status instead. This is direct routing guidance.

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