gdex_status

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true) and external reach (openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that account data is returned without secrets, that policy is reported per account, and that pending operations and setup guidance are included. It omits auth/prerequisite or failure-mode notes, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the routing cue 'Start here' followed by a tight enumeration. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so field by field. An agent knows what it will receive and why to call it first, so nothing material is missing for a zero-arg read-only status tool.

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 no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics and instead describes the response content, which is the right use of space here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reports') and enumerates exactly what the status covers: version, connected accounts, API reachability, delegated trading policy, pending operations, supported trade kinds, and the next setup step. The opening 'Start here' positions it as the entry-point diagnostic and cleanly separates it from action siblings like gdex_connect, gdex_accounts, and gdex_execute_trade.

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?

'Start here' gives an explicit trigger for when to call the tool (before doing anything else), and 'the next setup step' hints at the onboarding flow it feeds. It does not name when-not-to-use or a specific alternative diagnostic, so it stops short of the full 5.

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