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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a status indicator, incident count, and uptime, covering 75+ services. The read-only nature is implied by 'check' and the return of status, but not explicitly stated. However, it provides sufficient transparency for an agent.

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 comprised of three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds necessary detail (return values, coverage, parameter usage) without redundancy.

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?

Given the single optional parameter, no output schema, and simple task, the description is complete. It explains the returned fields and the scope of services, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the filter behavior: case-insensitive, partial names, optional. This goes beyond the schema's description, clarifying usage nuances.

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's purpose: 'Check the current operational status of AI services tracked by Prismix'. It specifies the return values (status indicator, incident count, uptime) and distinguishes from siblings like get_incident_history and list_ai_services.

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 clear guidance on when to use the optional service parameter vs omitting it: 'Pass a service name/id to filter, or omit to see all.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose differentiation is clear.

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