dsb_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful distinction between 'configured' versus 'actually implemented' capabilities and mentions privacy boundaries, but says nothing about freshness of the configuration snapshot or whether a round trip to a provider occurs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the three reported aspects are enumerated in a logical order (provider, capabilities, privacy). It is arguably terse to a fault, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema that already documents return values, most of the burden is carried elsewhere. What the description lacks is orientation — what 'dsb' refers to and when a diagnostic call is warranted — leaving the agent to infer placement in a workflow.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing is misleading or missing on this dimension.

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 verb 'Report' is paired with three specific resources — configured provider, implemented capabilities, and privacy boundaries — so the tool's scope is clear and distinct from the ticket/journey/claim siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so an agent must infer the separation from resource content alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: checking what a provider is configured for and what is actually implemented suggests calling this before attempting other operations. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement, and no pointer to an alternative sibling.

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