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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is non-destructive and safe. The description adds value by specifying the data source (public status page) and the output fields (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, affected banks), but does not contradict or significantly extend beyond the annotations' implicit safety profile.

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 moderately concise, around three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds value (purpose, usage context, output details). While it is not overly verbose, it could be slightly more streamlined without losing essential information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and the nature of its returns. It explains what the output includes (global indicator, degraded components, open incidents, affected banks) and when to use it, making it complete for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not add any parameter-related semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without improvement.

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 checks the LIVE operational status of the Open Finance provider's public status page. It uses specific verbs ('checks') and resources ('provider status'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `openfinance_get_item_status` by noting it's separate from the user's connection status.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: 'whenever data looks incomplete or stale even though a connection shows UPDATED... it reveals an upstream outage'. It contrasts with the sibling tool and provides clear context for its use, effectively guiding the agent on appropriate scenarios.

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