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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds 'real-time' as a behavioral trait but does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or what the status response contains. For a read-only tool this is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, zero wasted words. Achieves maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations). The description clearly states the action and scope, but the absence of any mention of return format or additional context leaves a small gap. Overall adequate for a status-check tool.

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% and the provider param is fully described with an enum. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'real-time status' for 'a single AI provider'. The qualifier 'single' directly distinguishes it from sibling get_all_status, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it—for one provider—and contrasts with siblings (get_all_status, get_incidents). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it lacks explicit guidance but provides clear context.

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