Get current Azure service status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple statement by explaining that the data is 'read live from the public status feed' and that an empty list means no active issues. This provides useful context about data freshness and result interpretation, though it stops short of detailing rate limits or exact incident definitions.

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 two short sentences, immediately identifying the tool's purpose and the meaning of the expected result. There is no filler or redundant content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does and what the result signifies. It is complete for its intended use case.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and indeed there is nothing to explain. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving active Azure service incidents from a live public feed. The verb 'read' and resource 'active Azure service incidents' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools (search_roadmap, get_roadmap_item, list_recent_changes) which relate to roadmaps and changes.

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 implies usage for checking current Azure service health by describing the data source and the interpretation of an empty list. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but its clarity and the lack of alternative tools for the same purpose make the intended usage evident.

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