Carpe Diem service status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond the annotations — that the call is free — but says nothing about response shape, freshness of health data, or whether capacity figures are per-key or global.

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 telegraphic fragments, front-loaded with the primary payload (operator health) before the secondary one (marketplace capacity), with the cost note last. Every clause carries information; the fragment style is terse but not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status probe with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what categories of information come back. The main remaining gap is the absence of any output structure hint (e.g., whether capacity is reported as a number, tier, or per-endpoint breakdown), which matters slightly more because no output schema exists.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior.

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 resource (service status) and enumerates the data domains covered: operator health (database, settlement, providers) and marketplace capacity (headroom, price multiplier). This is far more concrete than a bare 'get status', though it never names which siblings (carpe_x402_status, carpe_rate_limits, carpe_balance) are the alternatives for adjacent questions.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't tell an agent whether to call this before a paid request to check capacity, or whether carpe_rate_limits or carpe_balance is the better fit for that question. The only implicit cue is the word 'status' in the title.

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