get_endpoint_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the result is an aggregate count rather than a list, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or whether disconnected/pending are disjoint categories.

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. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that other dimensions penalize.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned at a high level. However, it omits usage context and return-shape details (e.g., whether counts are grouped or flat), leaving the agent to infer too much for a fully complete definition.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter org_id is undocumented in the schema, but the description's phrase 'for an organization' maps directly to org_id and clarifies its meaning. It adds no format or ID-type detail beyond that.

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 resource (endpoint counts) and the exact scope (per organization) plus the dimensions counted (connected/disconnected/pending). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_endpoints or get_endpoint, but the 'counts' framing makes the aggregate nature clear enough to separate it from the listing tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer that this is for summary/status counts rather than endpoint enumeration.

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