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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful semantic contract: results are observed, never guessed, and 'unknown' specifically means no evidence exists. It does not cover permissions, caching, or error behavior, but for a status lookup these are secondary.

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 short sentences, with the return values front-loaded and the critical evidence rule stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return components and the meaning of 'unknown'. It would be slightly stronger with explicit status vocabulary or an example identifier, but the essential selection and invocation cues are present.

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%, so the description needed to explain idOrHandle, but it does not. The parameter name and tool title imply it is an agent identifier, but accepted formats, how handles are resolved, and what identifier types are valid are left unspecified.

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 returns observed status, reason, and a 30-day reliability summary, making its purpose specific and recognizable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_agent or resolve_agent, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 'Never a guess' implies this should be used for evidence-backed liveness checks rather than inferred or estimated status. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-sibling guidance, so usage context is only implied.

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