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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: live incident reports from the official Statuspage, coverage of web/API/model availability, and a 1-credit cost.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and source, with cost appended at the end. No redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is checked, the source, coverage, and cost. No critical invocation detail is missing.

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?

There are no input parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Claude or the Anthropic API') with clear scope around downtime and performance issues. The provider-specific naming distinguishes it from sibling status tools such as openai_status and github_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?

Clearly indicates when to use it: checking Claude/Anthropic downtime or performance issues. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the provider-specific scope makes the relevant sibling choice obvious.

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