vendor_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the polling cadence, staleness, and the exact fields returned. It omits edge-case behavior such as handling unknown vendors, but for a read-only status lookup the key traits are disclosed.

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 sentences with no filler. The result is front-loaded, the status values are compactly enumerated, and the important daily-poll caveat is included without repetition.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and possible status values, which is enough for basic invocation. It could clarify behavior for an unknown vendor, but the input schema's 'name, slug or status-page domain' already covers flexible lookup.

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 schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names the exact resource ('one vendor'), the data source ('newest daily poll'), and the status vocabulary, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from plural or incident-focused siblings like vendors_down_now and vendor_incidents.

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?

It explicitly warns that this is a daily poll, not a live probe, which tells an agent not to use it for real-time checks. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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