langextract_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns 'safe server configuration, limits, and provider mode' and explicitly avoids probing providers, though it does not detail authentication or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the return value and appends the important non-probing constraint. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 that this is a simple zero-parameter status tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient information about what is returned and the non-probing behavior. It is nearly complete, though it could be slightly improved by noting the intended usage context.

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 the description has no parameters to explain. Per the scoring rule, a zero-parameter tool sets a baseline of 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('safe server configuration, limits, and provider mode'), making its purpose clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling tools (langextract_extract and langextract_visualize), so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without probing providers' implies this tool is the safe, read-only alternative for checking status without side effects, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools. Usage is only implied for status checks.

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