Keel service status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the content shape (what the status reports) but no traits annotations miss: no auth requirements, caching/TTL behavior, rate limits, or whether the ledger reference is live or stale. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the most important question (is the engine healthy) followed by supporting detail, then the usage cue. Nothing is wasted, though the inline list is packed tightly enough that it reads as a run-on.

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, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does by enumerating the four reported facts. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool. Missing only detail on format/units of the returned values.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter information is present.

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 the specific resource (Keel service) and enumerates the four facts it reports: engine health, latest scan ledger, monitored asset count, and methodology version. This clearly distinguishes it from the asset-level siblings (list_assets, find_asset, get_asset_risk). It lacks an explicit verb, reading as a noun phrase rather than 'Returns status of...', but the resource is unmistakable.

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?

'Call this first when freshness matters' gives a concrete condition for invocation and positions the tool as an entry-point check. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, nor does it explain what 'freshness' means operationally, but the cue is actionable and unambiguous.

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