router_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly uses the non-mutating verb 'Return' and lists read-only status information, signaling that this is a safe query. It omits details about freshness or caching, but the read-only intent is clear.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the verb, resource, and all major output areas efficiently, and every phrase earns its place.

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 no-parameter status read with an output schema available, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It identifies the resource and the domains of the returned data, while the output schema can handle detailed return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema's properties are empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a clear read verb ('Return') tied to a specific resource ('router') and enumerates the exact data categories returned: local usage, quota headers, provider health, and consent mode. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling status tools like pipeline_status or library_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pipeline_status or library_status, and it lists no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the listed return data.

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