data_source_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'health, freshness, and safety flags' but does not state whether this triggers live external API calls, whether it is a pure read operation, or what side effects or rate-limit implications exist. The output categories are named but their meaning and behavior are not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently names the action, the output categories, and the covered sources. It could have added brief parameter context without losing conciseness, but as structured it is appropriately brief.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin to give an agent a complete picture. It explains what the tool returns at a high level but omits how the optional parameters affect results, what 'safety flags' means, and what the response structure looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'market', 'symbol', or 'exchange' parameters at all. Since all three are optional with defaults, an agent has no idea how they filter or affect the status response. The description provides zero compensation for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('current health, freshness, and safety flags for... source integrations'), and explicitly lists the seven covered sources. This clearly distinguishes it from per-source sibling tools like avanza_status or zacks_scrape_symbol, as it is the only multi-source status/health tool.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. With siblings like avanza_status and tv_auth_session_status, an agent would benefit from an explicit 'use this for multi-source health checks, use avanza_status for Avanza-only status' type of direction. No such when/when-not context is present.

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